Pacers Making Play at Millsap?

[jacktheripper]

Looks as if Pacers are interested in Rondo..

The article states "While Indiana and the Celtics have talked about the preliminary framework of a deal, two sources say a third team would be needed to consummate the deal."

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/216862/Pacers_Exploring_Trade_For_Rondo

Thoughts?

 

[theNBAnerd]

In two years, Granger is 30.

30 is usually when perimeter players hit a wall in their ability. Some find ways to adapt and stay good, none improve.

i actually agree with you on george-over-granger for the jazz's purposes, so this is kinda splitting hairs... but i just hate the perception that there's some magical clock ticking and once 30 hits, an NBA player's stagecoach turns back into a pumpkin. 27-30 is considered the athletic prime for the average NBAer, but a great many don't play their best basketball until their 30s. that's definitely true of most of the modern greats. since the magic/bird era ended, an NBA star has almost always had to wait until their 30s to peak.

* MJ - won 4 of his 6 titles after 30, and most consider the 96-97 and 97-98 seasons his pinnacle. he was 33-35 during those years.
* malone - won his MVP awards at 33 and 35.
* stockton - didn't reach the finals until he was 36 and 37 years old. the 37-year old finals came after an injury that cost him 18 games -- dispelling the other myth i love to hate about how players can never come back from a serious injury to play at a high level.
* kobe - largely considered a sidekick on his first three titles, he revived the best-player-in-the-current-generation talk by winning two more titles at age 31 and 32.
* olajuwon - considered a freakish athlete in his 20s, it wasn't until 31 and 32 that he hugged the trophy.
* nowitzki - reached his first finals at 28 but fell short. at 33, considered one of the most unstoppable scorers in the modern game.

 

[LogGrad98]

i actually agree with you on george-over-granger for the jazz's purposes, so this is kinda splitting hairs... but i just hate the perception that there's some magical clock ticking and once 30 hits, an NBA player's stagecoach turns back into a pumpkin. 27-30 is considered the athletic prime for the average NBAer, but a great many don't play their best basketball until their 30s. that's definitely true of most of the modern greats. since the magic/bird era ended, an NBA star has almost always had to wait until their 30s to peak.

* MJ - won 4 of his 6 titles after 30, and most consider the 96-97 and 97-98 seasons his pinnacle. he was 33-35 during those years.
* malone - won his MVP awards at 33 and 35.
* stockton - didn't reach the finals until he was 36 and 37 years old. the 37-year old finals came after an injury that cost him 18 games -- dispelling the other myth i love to hate about how players can never come back from a serious injury to play at a high level.
* kobe - largely considered a sidekick on his first three titles, he revived the best-player-in-the-current-generation talk by winning two more titles at age 31 and 32.
* olajuwon - considered a freakish athlete in his 20s, it wasn't until 31 and 32 that he hugged the trophy.
* nowitzki - reached his first finals at 28 but fell short. at 33, considered one of the most unstoppable scorers in the modern game.

This is a rep-worthy post (after the 24 hour cool-down period). However, you are largely showing the exceptions, not the rule. How many players are out of the game at 30+? How many retire in their early 30's? The greatest will be great for a good long time after the others, but even impact players who can drive championship teams will tend to see a decline after 30 (Hamilton/Billups comes to mind). The odds are, a player will start a decline at or around 30. That is just statistics.

 

[InGameStrategy]

This is a rep-worthy post (after the 24 hour cool-down period). However, you are largely showing the exceptions, not the rule. How many players are out of the game at 30+? How many retire in their early 30's? The greatest will be great for a good long time after the others, but even impact players who can drive championship teams will tend to see a decline after 30 (Hamilton/Billups comes to mind). The odds are, a player will start a decline at or around 30. That is just statistics.

Yeah, Okur really started to hit his prime at 30--oh, wait.
#10MillionReasonsNotToResignALumberingThreePointShootingEuroCenter

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Yeah, Okur really started to hit his prime at 30--oh, wait.

He also had a major injury. Players can be good past their 30's as long as they stay healthy.

 

[Stifle Tower]

i actually agree with you on george-over-granger for the jazz's purposes, so this is kinda splitting hairs... but i just hate the perception that there's some magical clock ticking and once 30 hits, an NBA player's stagecoach turns back into a pumpkin. 27-30 is considered the athletic prime for the average NBAer, but a great many don't play their best basketball until their 30s. that's definitely true of most of the modern greats. since the magic/bird era ended, an NBA star has almost always had to wait until their 30s to peak.

* MJ - won 4 of his 6 titles after 30, and most consider the 96-97 and 97-98 seasons his pinnacle. he was 33-35 during those years.
* malone - won his MVP awards at 33 and 35.
* stockton - didn't reach the finals until he was 36 and 37 years old. the 37-year old finals came after an injury that cost him 18 games -- dispelling the other myth i love to hate about how players can never come back from a serious injury to play at a high level.
* kobe - largely considered a sidekick on his first three titles, he revived the best-player-in-the-current-generation talk by winning two more titles at age 31 and 32.
* olajuwon - considered a freakish athlete in his 20s, it wasn't until 31 and 32 that he hugged the trophy.
* nowitzki - reached his first finals at 28 but fell short. at 33, considered one of the most unstoppable scorers in the modern game.

So you're saying there's a good chance that AK's best years are yet to come? AKMVP will be happy to hear that.

 

[InGameStrategy]

He also had a major injury. Players can be good past their 30's as long as they stay healthy.

You took the bait hook, line, and sinker.

Okur was declining in 2009-2010, before his injury (and his renewal, but after his 30th birthday), to the tune of an underwhelming 13.5 points (down 3.5 PPG or ~3 PP30 vs. the previous year), 7.7 rebounds (near MO's average, but not impressive for a big man), and 1.1 blocks (pretty meh for a center) in about 30 minutes per game.

This stat line might be OK for a big man who can actually control the paint. But Okur didn't. Even if he tried.

This is also merely one example, but as LogGrad wrote, peaking in the 30's might be the exception, not the rule. Yes players "can be" good into their 30's, and maybe Granger would, but the key is to look at the player projection (e.g., the trending of his production and his projected lifetime minutes). Granger is doing well now, at age 28ish, although his shooting has always been underwhelming.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

So having one bad year means you are set for a steady decline the rest of your career?

 

[NAOS]

So having one bad year means you are set for a steady decline the rest of your career?

What's not getting through to you? The "answer" the Memo issue is a statistically supported bet: (a) yes, he'll never be what he was and his future productivity is in serious doubt; (b) he shouldn't have been extended.

If you want to argue these points then you need to realize your departing from position that has robust statistical support, which is fine, but what are you going to use to back up your position?

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

What's not getting through to you? The "answer" the Memo issue is a statistically supported bet: (a) yes, he'll never be what he was and his future productivity is in serious doubt; (b) he shouldn't have been extended.

If you want to argue these points then you need to realize your departing from position that has robust statistical support, which is fine, but what are you going to use to back up your position?

We aren't talking about Memo, we are talking about Danny Granger. He is just using Memo as an example. Please read thread before you get into arguments.

 

[NAOS]

We aren't talking about Memo, we are talking about Danny Granger. He is just using Memo as an example.

^ there is plenty of room for confusion on that ^.
And, I wasn't looking to argue with you either. I'd personally like to hear an argument for keeping Memo in the mix this year because I can't see one. I thought maybe you could provide one.

 

[theNBAnerd]

This is a rep-worthy post (after the 24 hour cool-down period). However, you are largely showing the exceptions, not the rule. How many players are out of the game at 30+? How many retire in their early 30's? The greatest will be great for a good long time after the others, but even impact players who can drive championship teams will tend to see a decline after 30 (Hamilton/Billups comes to mind). The odds are, a player will start a decline at or around 30. That is just statistics.

that's the thing, it's not just statistics. people talk enough about players being on "the wrong side of 30" so much that we assume there's a firm statistical correlation. there really isn't, especially when you're talking about star-level players. that 27-30 is the PHYSICAL prime is no surprise, but basketball is more than just physical. and you're right, there is a sea of NBA players that wash out long before 30 -- a point you're quick to make without realizing that it undermines your point that 30 is some magical threshold from whence no man returns.

there are tons of reasons why an NBA player starts to decline. my argument is that in very few cases does someone at 31 see a statistically significant drop in production based ONLY on the one extra birthday.

 

[LogGrad98]

Um, I never made an argument regarding players who wash out before 30. I said 30+. Most remaining players leave the league not long after they turn 30 (between 30 and say 33 or 34). This gives most players in that age range max 2 or 3 years. Can you show some stats proving otherwise?

Here is some interesting info:

https://wagesofwins.com/2009/12/23/a-quick-note-on-aging-in-the-nba/

the key issue is not the specific point in the player’s 20s where the peak occurs, but rather that performance after age 30 has a noticeable drop-off. In the player’s twenties the slope downward is quite gradual (and not something you would probably notice if you watched the player). In other words, LeBron will still be LeBron – barring injury – for a few more years.

 

[NCJazz]

So you're saying there's a good chance that AK's best years are yet to come? AKMVP will be happy to hear that.

He has been playing very well in Russia. He still has some good years left in him. Problem is that he will almost certainly do that in like 50 games a season and not 82.

 

[theNBAnerd]

Um, I never made an argument regarding players who wash out before 30. I said 30+. Most remaining players leave the league not long after they turn 30 (between 30 and say 33 or 34). This gives most players in that age range max 2 or 3 years. Can you show some stats proving otherwise?

Here is some interesting info:

https://wagesofwins.com/2009/12/23/a-quick-note-on-aging-in-the-nba/

that's nifty and all, but there's still nothing in there that proves that a decline is due to age, and that's not even the biggest argument against what this says. the biggest argument is that this fails to address what i said above -- that basketball is more than physical, and as such "better" can be pretty hard to measure. take the MJ example again. which MJ would you want if you could pluck him from history for a single season: the 25-year old jordan (using the peak described in your post) or the 34-year-old jordan?

you and any smart NBA fan would pick the 34-year-old jordan because, with the benefit of history, you know that 97-98 jordan can win games simply by willpower, scores efficiently, has learned to be a better teammate, and does more of the little things, which is why he's about to complete his second three-peat while 25-year-old jordan is going to be an early out at the hands of the pistons because, while he's a more unstoppable force, he hasn't honed his game like the other guy. but ya know what? 25-year-old jordan is far better if we used the stats that the wages of winning guys are using to define this mythical decline. his PER is a ridiculous 31.1 (compared to 25.2 for 34-year-old jordan) and his win share/48 is .292 compared to .238 for his older alter ego. and yet we'd still both take the older version for our time machine experiment team because that guy is going to win a ring.

in other words, jordan isn't the exception to the rule that WOW is pointing out -- he is the rule, and we simply know better than the rule. their algorithms say 34-year-old jordan declined compared to 25-year-old jordan because it's looking at things that don't show you which guy had learned how to win.