cp3 is not average but he will age the question is how fast
Duncan aged well will cp3 ?
Peg leg, smell like Medellin, wake in the night, make a pipe out of anything. Take 5, take a dive in the cellophane. We turn 5 into to 5, 6, 7, 8.
Back out, Black out some wear fancy, shake in the backseat out of Aesop's Camry.
Seat full of chips and sandwich meat from the crypt in the end. If you give an address and a rib- don't pissed by the Mystery Fish.
Just picture shrimp on a pillow of grits.
Close your eyes. Lick your lips.
RealGM @RealGM
2m
Spencer Hawes Exercises $6M Player Option With Bucks: basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/246491…
Chris Vivlamore @CVivlamoreAJC
5m
The Hawks have officially extended a qualifying offer to Tim Hardaway Jr. making him a restricted free agent.
Damn Hardaway would be a nice Simmons replacement
He'll want too much money too.
I wonder if Detroit would consider Aldridge for Drummond?
Or if Memphis would consider Aldridge/scrubs for M. Gasol?
Or if Okc would consider Aldridge for Kanter?
Any armchair GM takes on this?
Explain to me what Drummond does better than even Dedmon besides empty stat rebounding? Dedmon's defensive stats were near the top of the league while Drummond's were atrocious, and he can't stay on the floor because of foul shooting.
Strong no on Drummond.
It's not my graph and I am sure I don't know how he calculates percentage of peak performance, nor do I care since I am not a math wiz... but it does confirm visually that after a certain age, short PG decline a of a lot faster and get worse than the taller guys... simplistic yes? is it a lie? no. peak performance: common language definition as a guy's best years.
Better shooter and a younger player... I think he's getting paid.
This graph proves that CP3 will get eaten up here. That's what graphs do - prove things.
Sorry, but it doesn't confirm anything except that the graph says that short PG's decline faster.
Its a k.pelton graph... you can bring it up with him.
are you disputing short PG decline at a faster rate and sooner than the longer PGs... bc otherwise your sarcasm doesn't help any.
Interesting. I'd be very interested in getting him on the team then, but what Objective said puts me off a bit. It doesn't sound like he has Spurs type of character (that doesn't put me off if his game has improved, but it probably puts the front office off).
The pac man chart is dope.This graph proves that CP3 will get eaten up here. That's what graphs do - prove things.
Sorry, but it doesn't confirm anything except that the graph says that short PG's decline faster.
LOL... you think THAT was sarcastic? I wasn't nearly as sarcastic as I probably should have been. Look, a graph doesn't "prove" anything to me, if I don't even know what the it's measuring or how.
If you're in a mood to be pissy tonight, go start an Anderson-worship thread and you'll get plenty of takers. I made a valid point that the graph doesn't prove anything unless it compares apples to apples. If you want to buy into it, party on.
But just for the record, you know who REALLY doesn't age well in professional sports? Guys who were second-rate to begin with. And I would just about bet that there have been a load of second-rate PG's who were short, whose performance curve was pretty short, and skew that graph. People start with an agenda and find the data that confirms it all the damn time. But I didn't say the graph was wrong - I said I don't know. But I'm not going to believe it's right blindly either.
Correlation in and of itself does not equate to causation.
Also, the term peak years for a point can be subjective as .
Someone might consider peak to be a chunker point guard who throw up 30 shots to get 25 points a game and averages 6 assists but has 3 turnovers a game.
The parameters of what defines a peak year is important if you are going to rely on the chart. What the masses seem to think is important and peak don't necessarily coincide with my thought process.
So a chart in and of itself is to be taken with a grain of salt unless the method of calculation is fleshed out and known.
It seems to me you are the one in the pissy mood...
I mean look at all that ^ you wrote there... a little bit of self exam is required right?
Look, I post it here for what it's worth. It's no my graph so it's not my business to argue about it. Ppl are free to take it for what it's worth or not... consider it a conversation starter... now you did start a conversation about how the graph doesn't mean anything and since its not my graph that is as far as we can go...
the rest is really pissy .
Y'all are both coming off a little pissy. Hug it out, y'all.
Yep. All of that. Besides the fact that it shows that short PG's, on AVERAGE, are at their peak by the age of 23. How many good NBA players have reached their peak by 23? A lot of career scrubs are as good as they are ever going to get by 23, which means he probably lumped a bunch of guys in there who are meaningless for any trade discussion. And that doesn't take into account things like sample size. Were there a lot fewer tall PG's, most of whom were exceptional talents? Good chance there were.
Oh - and maybe the fact that I would rather have a super-star PG at 80% than a ty tall PG at 100%. But, hey... why stop to think about things like that.
off. I don't care what kind of plumbing you have, off. You way overvalue your significance with all this.
Y'all are both coming off a little pissy. Hug it out, y'all.
I suppose he didn't comment any bc he doesn't credit the graph. His point is fair, but it's just not a conversation we can chat much about bc I am not about to go defending a graph that I didn't prepare.. the person who did the chart though could give the foundations for it etc, as well as answer questions about it. I suppose that is the end of the conversation. nowhere else we can go from there that is not sideways on some rant about something else... like how I can make worship threads lol(that was actually very funny actually... and sarcastic... )
Y'all are both coming off a little pissy. Hug it out, y'all.
Heh. I'll give the point to the Kyle Fan Club President. The graph proves that we should never sign a short PG over the age of 25. I don't even know where the dividing line is between short and tall, but who cares? Graph good. Me bad.
(like all the rest that was said)
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/1...rd-career-arcs
The article with the graph gives some more info. Like the heights of small vs big. Looks like WARP is used for peak. Also small sample size.
Not sure why you'd get worked up over this.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
