Pacers Making Play at Millsap?

[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.