Age/experience vs Youth

[Mav-elous Man]

I was thinking about the "window of opportunity" for various teams around the association. Teams like the Mavs, Spurs, and Celtics are getting older. And young teams like OKC and Memphis are on the rise putting very competitive products on the court.

So I was wondering what was the average age of NBA championship teams. Through the miracles of google here is what I found.

I found this graph...

http://idrisr.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/nba_ages1.jpg?w=604

on...

http://idrisr.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/nba-champs-team-age/

and this chart...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5226/5576584069_6bd5758f13_b.jpg

on...

http://www.thetwomangame.com/2011/03/senescence/

If you have found any better or more info, feel free to share.

Discuss.

[rayjayjohnson]

Lots of TOSBs

[Mav-elous Man]

TOSBs??? I'm a little slow. You'll have to clarify for me.

[lefty]

Youth for the win

Age/experience is nice, but young legs, fearlessness and quicker recovery time win TBH

[Mav-elous Man]

Can't argue with your logic on youth. It appears to me the best chance for a dynasty is to start young but age/experience can get a championship or two.

[LnGrrrR]

2011 Celtics have to be right up there with 2011 Mavs in age.

[m>s]

a short season favors elder teams imho. if the mavs end up landing a really good C (not likely to come true though) they are still the favorite to win, even w/o no further signing they're still a top 3 team in the west and will have a good chance to come out of the west (only to get assspanked by either Heat or Bulls though)

[m>s]

Youth for the win

Age/experience is nice, but young legs, fearlessness and quicker recovery time win TBH

short season is da best for old legs tbh, old tired shitbags won't need to malinger alot in the name of "saving for playoffs"

[DMC]

It's not so much age as experience, sometimes it goes hand in hand.

Young talented teams generally have to mature before they can get over the hump, and even though they do well in the regular season and make a playoff run, invariably they make mental errors that cost them games. As they mature as individuals and as a team, they become more poised and those errors are minimized.

So, you don't need age, per se, but you do need maturity and talent.

[Mav-elous Man]

It's not so much age as experience, sometimes it goes hand in hand.

Young talented teams generally have to mature before they can get over the hump, and even though they do well in the regular season and make a playoff run, invariably they make mental errors that cost them games. As they mature as individuals and as a team, they become more poised and those errors are minimized.

So, you don't need age, per se, but you do need maturity and talent.


Thats exactly why I phrased it the way I did... Age/experience

[Ghazi]

Short season would benefit the older teams if it weren't for the fact that it's 66 games in 67 days or so...

Older teams do generally win titles but I think the 3 best teams (OKC, Chicago, Miami) are all pretty young.

Miami's core is pretty veteran though... just not in their 30's or anything.

[DMC]

Thats exactly why I phrased it the way I did... Age/experience
Your graph shows that champions rise and they remain until they become too weak or slow to continue. It does not show experience, only age. It doesn't show maturity, only age.

It shows that young talent that gets over the hump can often stay over it for a few years if they get over it soon enough. That's assuming the management doesn't fuck it up.

Then you have fliers like Miami, Detroit and Dallas. The Spurs were the gap fillers for the Lakers tbh. The fact that the Lakers and the Spurs were able to go multiple times with the same core group/s supports the notion that players have to get over the hump early enough for a team to have any longevity. Injuries play a large role also.

And it's not the average age of the team as much as the ages of the star players. Almost all of those teams had dominant stars who aged and became vulnerable. The role players around them changed, but the stars kept the team winning rings.

[Mav-elous Man]

Your graph shows that champions rise and they remain until they become too weak or slow to continue. It does not show experience, only age. It doesn't show maturity, only age.

It shows that young talent that gets over the hump can often stay over it for a few years if they get over it soon enough. That's assuming the management doesn't fuck it up.

Then you have fliers like Miami, Detroit and Dallas. The Spurs were the gap fillers for the Lakers tbh. The fact that the Lakers and the Spurs were able to go multiple times with the same core group/s supports the notion that players have to get over the hump early enough for a team to have any longevity. Injuries play a large role also.

And it's not the average age of the team as much as the ages of the star players. Almost all of those teams had dominant stars who aged and became vulnerable. The role players around them changed, but the stars kept the team winning rings.


No. No. No. I was actually agreeing with you. If you notice, the graph and the chart say weighted age. Taking into consideration that there are star or key players that play the majority of the minutes and role players who are cycled through from year to year. Thats different than the actual age. But I do agree with you wholeheartedly.

I was saying age OR experience because as you said earlier, age doesn't neccessarily mean you are experienced or talented.