31+ year old PGs
- Thread starter silesian
- Start date
What does it say about post-31 for players who have just had their career year?
Also, wouldn't it be more accurate to look at career minutes played rather than strictly age? Hill would get a bump because he came out of college as a 4 year player.
Game6Conley
Well-Known Member
As it relates to wear and tear/durability and damage already sustained to his toes/feet I'm certain this train of thought doesn't apply. he's already had concerns with that stuff too..
What happens is basketball players are really used to lacing their shoes up super tight and damageis done over time..
Alotof times it results in the little toe being pushed up .... like LeBRon.. or Stephon Marbury
Hill's play style is that of someone who ties his shoes real tight..
I bet age is more accurate.
There are thorough reddit OC concerning the minutes played topic. In average there's a cut off where up to 50k mins played peak athletes can sustain performance. There are declines prior to that but they are not crucial as the gradient is still fairly flat though it's negative already. Hill playing light college load in his early 20s can very well mean that he can add some years at the end of his prime. I think injuries are more problematic than wear and tear when it comes to elderly athletes, as recovery times are less predictable with increasing age.
Great idea, might add some insight. Both age and minutes probably factor in.
not a damn thing. It just shows the average trends, which I hope are wrong for Hill.
I think a better way to investigate the impact of age would be to compare the average change in (advanced) stat sheet performance of PGs at their different ages, then look at the change in (NBA) production compared to minutes accumulated in college + international competitions + NBA and do the same for change in performance vs years in the NBA. Correlation should give decent returns when looking for patterns.
The issues I have with the offered method is that it doesn't take into account how many PGs are at a certain age and it doesn't take into account the development of their individual performance.
An interesting discussion would be if certain players have to get filtered out, like players with degenerative injuries like cartilage damage or ligament ruptures, especially in ankles and knees.
The issues I have with the offered method is that it doesn't take into account how many PGs are at a certain age and it doesn't take into account the development of their individual performance.
An interesting discussion would be if certain players have to get filtered out, like players with degenerative injuries like cartilage damage or ligament ruptures, especially in ankles and knees.
checkbookdoc
Well-Known Member
Can you tell me what constitutes a "qualified PG"? Also, what years are you using (I would assume this is very different in the 80's and 90's)?
I love the idea of having actual data to support this discussion! Could you run this again but using a representative sample? Maybe focus on those PGs with a similar EWA over the years 25-30 that Hill has? If you wanted to be very informative you would also identify and eliminate any players that suffered serious injury in the two or three years before.
I love the idea of having actual data to support this discussion! Could you run this again but using a representative sample? Maybe focus on those PGs with a similar EWA over the years 25-30 that Hill has? If you wanted to be very informative you would also identify and eliminate any players that suffered serious injury in the two or three years before.
checkbookdoc
Well-Known Member
Good comment!
checkbookdoc
Well-Known Member
I thought this was historical data before, but now I think this is based on current players... not nearly as informative as tracking historical players over their career would be.
vegas
Well-Known Member
Op it's cool you took the time to analyse some data. I wish people appreciated this stuff more. It's what the I imagine professionals do only on an even deeper level. I hope you keep posting this kind of info and maybe even a revised version now that you have some feedback.
green
Well-Known Member
This thread is really cute and all, but it is all sidestepping a major point:
If we need to create this super specific subgroup of players so Hill fits in nicely and looks good, then that is a risk that I don't want to take when it comes to 100 million dollars.
If I'm going to spend 100 million dollars on a player, I want it to be as close to a slam dunk as possible. If I were Utah, I'd look at trading Favors, Hood, Burke, a lot of my picks, etc for a younger, proven PG this summer.
If we need to create this super specific subgroup of players so Hill fits in nicely and looks good, then that is a risk that I don't want to take when it comes to 100 million dollars.
If I'm going to spend 100 million dollars on a player, I want it to be as close to a slam dunk as possible. If I were Utah, I'd look at trading Favors, Hood, Burke, a lot of my picks, etc for a younger, proven PG this summer.
Thanks, It is very simplistic/ shorthand "analysis" I did it to satisfy my curiosity and then thought others might be interested in what it showed. And it might stimulate some ideas and debate.
I knew there would be a dropoff, but was surprised the steepness of the curve, apparently both attrition and performance (which of course are related, as you start to suck you retire or get cut). As a "snapshot" that does not track players across years, it has the potential to be misleading, as I think has been pointed out by others.
I wish it painted a better picture for Hill, but this just indicates a concern and is not predictive. I bet the Jazz are looking at the numbers behind Hill's situation VERY CLOSELY (as opposed to my 30 minutes).
There are hundreds of different ways to datamine/ analyze and some good thoughts were posted earlier. My curiosity is already satisfied, so I'll leave it up to those geekier than me to crunch numbers for real.