Frank Mason

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#31
Why are we even debating this? Mentioning Payton, Kidd, and Bird? I don't see any flashes of greatness from Fox in twenty something games. Will he be a good pg? Who knows. Tyreke was 10times better than Fox in his first year as a one dimensional player. Who couldn't shoot, play D, or see the floor. Sure, different body types and styles. Right Now, I see Efrid Payton as a more likely comparison to Fox. Hyper athletic, can't shoot, and is inconsistent defensively. Same body type, same skill set. Sure, Fox is younger. So, there is still hope. But, I am sure Magic fans were saying the thing about Payton after his rookie year.
Why are "we even debating this"? Well, maybe because this is a Kings board and it's kinda what we do. ;)

I personally enjoyed bajaden's post and thought his mentions of Payton, Kidd and Bird were valid in regards to the point he was making.
 
#32
This is nonsense.. I've been arguing against this for years on this forum. There is certainly an age where your physically as developed as your going to get. A point where your not going to jump higher, run faster, improve your lateral quickness etc. But the idea that you can't improve your skill level is ridiculous. The more time you put in developing your ball handling, shooting, and overall game skills depending on your position, the better you'll become. It took Jason Kidd years to become a good three point shooter. Ditto Magic Johnson. I could spend days naming players that got better and better as the years went on. Larry Bird said that every offseason he always developed a new wrinkle to his game because they always figured out how to defend the old wrinkle. Game experience alone will make you better without you knowing it. The game will just become easier.

Everyone remembers Gary Payton as one of the best defending PG's in the league, but in his first two or three years in the league, he was downright terrible. This stuff doesn't happen overnight. I get tired of saying that there are no shortcuts, and what you see today, isn't what you'll see three or four years from now. So Mason is going to turn 25 years of age. So what? Lets say he is our backup PG of the future, which doesn't seem like a stretch. At what age will he become unserviceable? 32, 33, maybe if we stretch it out, 35 years of age. That would mean we would have him for 8 to 10 years. What's the longest any player has been on the Kings for the last ten years? Has any player lasted even 8 years in the last 10 years? So what's the worry about Mason turning 25? Just pure nonsense!!!!!

Edit: You also stated that you don't see Fox as a natural PG, whatever that really means in today's NBA. Well, you had better tell him that, because he spends more time trying to set people up than he does trying to score. The kid is trying to figure things out so give him a break and let go of the fact we didn't draft Dennis Smith, who really is more of a scoring PG. Right now, Fox has played close to an entire college season in games played. Huge adjustment. He'll go into the offseason with the knowledge necessary to prepare for next season.
My problem with your argument is that you keep bringing up all these outliers. I could just as well mention guys like Hasheem Tabheet, Johnny Flynn, Anthony Bennett, Derrick Williams, and Jan Vesley who never figured things out. Or how about the normal example of players who show role player potential at age 25 and never become more? Kyle Singler, Quincy Acy, Cole Aldrich, Spencer Hawes, Travis Outlaw, Omri Casspi, etc? This is the normal occurance. If you want to talk outliers, that's another thing. If you want to take a look at the entire history of the NBA and player development, it's a fact. I don't have the resources or time now to put evidence behind it, but I'd be very willing to.

Guys in the NBA hardly make large jumps after age 25. You don't go from being a mediocre player for ages 19-25, then all of a sudden become a star when you're 27. The NBA doesn't work that way.

Who would you rather have on your team in general? 26yearold MCW or 19yearold Frank Ntilikina? Now think about why you'd instantly pick Ntilikina over MCW... age is one of the biggest reasons. Already seeing MCW play basketball for 6+years including college is another big reason...which means you already get an idea of what his ceiling is right? MCW is also closer to his ceiling. How much more can he get better?

I don't think it should be any type of controversial topic. Older players are closer to their ceilings than younger players. Physical tools also play an extremely important part in the NBA too.
 
#33
My problem with your argument is that you keep bringing up all these outliers. I could just as well mention guys like Hasheem Tabheet, Johnny Flynn, Anthony Bennett, Derrick Williams, and Jan Vesley who never figured things out. Or how about the normal example of players who show role player potential at age 25 and never become more? Kyle Singler, Quincy Acy, Cole Aldrich, Spencer Hawes, Travis Outlaw, Omri Casspi, etc? This is the normal occurance. If you want to talk outliers, that's another thing. If you want to take a look at the entire history of the NBA and player development, it's a fact. I don't have the resources or time now to put evidence behind it, but I'd be very willing to.

Guys in the NBA hardly make large jumps after age 25. You don't go from being a mediocre player for ages 19-25, then all of a sudden become a star when you're 27. The NBA doesn't work that way.

Who would you rather have on your team in general? 26yearold MCW or 19yearold Frank Ntilikina? Now think about why you'd instantly pick Ntilikina over MCW... age is one of the biggest reasons. Already seeing MCW play basketball for 6+years including college is another big reason...which means you already get an idea of what his ceiling is right? MCW is also closer to his ceiling. How much more can he get better?

I don't think it should be any type of controversial topic. Older players are closer to their ceilings than younger players. Physical tools also play an extremely important part in the NBA too.
Many Players have developed 3, 4 and 5 years into their NBA careers. Age is just a number...........man:)
 
#34
Age isn't a black and white argument but it is still a legitimate argument. If we're talking odds here, the guy that shows he's pretty good in his rookie season is going to have a better chance of being a good player than the guy that doesn't.

That doesn't mean that the guy who struggled his rookie season won't wind up being any good. It just means that the odds will be lower.

It's why I don't like people using the Whiteside argument because his developmental progress is so rare that you can't count on it ever happening. You either get lucky or you don't but you'll wind up with a roster full of cans if you are sitting around waiting for them to turn into Whiteside.
 
#35
Why are we even debating this? Mentioning Payton, Kidd, and Bird? I don't see any flashes of greatness from Fox in twenty something games. Will he be a good pg? Who knows. Tyreke was 10times better than Fox in his first year as a one dimensional player. Who couldn't shoot, play D, or see the floor. Sure, different body types and styles. Right Now, I see Efrid Payton as a more likely comparison to Fox. Hyper athletic, can't shoot, and is inconsistent defensively. Same body type, same skill set. Sure, Fox is younger. So, there is still hope. But, I am sure Magic fans were saying the thing about Payton after his rookie year.
Hitting a game winning pull up jumper as a rookie doesn't count as a "flash" of greatness?
 
#36
Fox is gonna be a player, I'm not worried about him. Everyone was talking about how FMIII might be one of the most NBA ready players in the draft, so is it REALLY a surprise that he is playing so well? He's a little better than I thought for sure and he's definitely outplaying Fox right now.... but i have no doubts that we have two winners on our hands. The best part might be, by the looks of the game the other night, they actually might compliment each other on the court and can play together....
 
#37
Age isn't a black and white argument but it is still a legitimate argument. If we're talking odds here, the guy that shows he's pretty good in his rookie season is going to have a better chance of being a good player than the guy that doesn't.

That doesn't mean that the guy who struggled his rookie season won't wind up being any good. It just means that the odds will be lower.

It's why I don't like people using the Whiteside argument because his developmental progress is so rare that you can't count on it ever happening. You either get lucky or you don't but you'll wind up with a roster full of cans if you are sitting around waiting for them to turn into Whiteside.
Good teams dont sit around waiting for their players to turn into something. Good teams actively help their players to develop in a way that helps the team the most.

Environment, opportunity, the quality of the Development staff and most of all whats between the ears of a player are way more important than age, draft position or how a player is judged by draft experts.

Every nba player is talented beyond belief. Its more a matter of getting in the right situation to really showcase your talent.
 
#38
Mason is dope. Lower ceiling than Fox, but way higher floor.

It's way too early to call it with Fox, but if he pans out Vlade straight killed it with setting us up at the point.
Vlade didn't "straight kill" anything with the picks of De'Aaron and Frank. These guys were the obvious choices at their spots. A trained monkey could have picked those guys.

The real skill as an evaluator and tactician was with the #10 pick and whether he "straight killed it" with Giles and Jackson over Donovan or OG Anunoby remains to be seen.

OG Anunoby can be one of the best defenders in the NBA IMO. We are currently 29th out of 30 in defense. Meanwhile Justin Jackson went 0 for 12 FGs recently in a G League game.
 

gunks

Hall of Famer
#39
Vlade didn't "straight kill" anything with the picks of De'Aaron and Frank. These guys were the obvious choices at their spots. A trained monkey could have picked those guys.

The real skill as an evaluator and tactician was with the #10 pick and whether he "straight killed it" with Giles and Jackson over Donovan or OG Anunoby remains to be seen.

OG Anunoby can be one of the best defenders in the NBA IMO. We are currently 29th out of 30 in defense. Meanwhile Justin Jackson went 0 for 12 FGs recently in a G League game.
I think you missed my POINT.

Pun intended.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#40
My problem with your argument is that you keep bringing up all these outliers. I could just as well mention guys like Hasheem Tabheet, Johnny Flynn, Anthony Bennett, Derrick Williams, and Jan Vesley who never figured things out. Or how about the normal example of players who show role player potential at age 25 and never become more? Kyle Singler, Quincy Acy, Cole Aldrich, Spencer Hawes, Travis Outlaw, Omri Casspi, etc? This is the normal occurance. If you want to talk outliers, that's another thing. If you want to take a look at the entire history of the NBA and player development, it's a fact. I don't have the resources or time now to put evidence behind it, but I'd be very willing to.

Guys in the NBA hardly make large jumps after age 25. You don't go from being a mediocre player for ages 19-25, then all of a sudden become a star when you're 27. The NBA doesn't work that way.

Who would you rather have on your team in general? 26yearold MCW or 19yearold Frank Ntilikina? Now think about why you'd instantly pick Ntilikina over MCW... age is one of the biggest reasons. Already seeing MCW play basketball for 6+years including college is another big reason...which means you already get an idea of what his ceiling is right? MCW is also closer to his ceiling. How much more can he get better?

I don't think it should be any type of controversial topic. Older players are closer to their ceilings than younger players. Physical tools also play an extremely important part in the NBA too.
Really! You have to be kidding me. Your going to use those guys as examples of why players don't improve after a certain age. Your losing all credibility with me, and I don't want that to happen amigo. Those guys didn't much talent to start with. Look, how good a player becomes, and for how long he continues to improve is up to the player. Donte Greene came here with all the talent in the world, and didn't get much better. Why? Because he was lazy. He didn't put in the work!!!! Some players don't have the talent to begin with. At least not NBA talent. That was the case with Thabeet. I predicted he wouldn't be a good player when he was at UCONN. He had no skill level other than blocking shots. Fortunately for him, in college you can plant yourself under the basket (no defensive 3 second rule) and just swat away shots. Unfortunately for him, you can't do that in the NBA.

For every player you can show me that didn't improve, I can show you 10 that did. But it's an individual thing. If a player puts in the hard work, he'll get better. How much better depends on the god given abilities he starts with. All players aren't created equal. Vince Carter started out as an athletic freak, but as he got older, and his athleticism started to diminish, he worked hard and made himself into a better shooter, etc. All that well after the age of 26 or 27. I don't know if you remember the original Zach Randolph at Portland, but the player he is now is a far better version of that player, and lot of that developed after the age of 26 or 27 years of age. I got better as a player as I got older. Just the experience of playing the game made me better.

Believe what you want, but I've been watching NBA basketball for over 50 years. I watched a 36 year old Wilt Chamberlain school a young Jabbar in the finals. It's an individual thing.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#41
Really! You have to be kidding me. Your going to use those guys as examples of why players don't improve after a certain age. Your losing all credibility with me, and I don't want that to happen amigo. Those guys didn't much talent to start with. Look, how good a player becomes, and for how long he continues to improve is up to the player. Donte Greene came here with all the talent in the world, and didn't get much better. Why? Because he was lazy. He didn't put in the work!!!!
And, on the other side of the coin, Gerald Wallace had tons of talent, was lazy and got exposed to the expansion draft because of it. He DID put in the work and became a pretty good player, but it took him getting the ego slapped out of him. It wasn't about his age as much as it was about him finally facing the "come to Jesus" moment and recognizing it for what it was.

Like you said, "If a player puts in the hard work, he'll get better."
 
#42
Star Quality is something you see early on. Regardless, of stats. Players Like Tatum, Mitchell, Smith, and Simmons are already very good and soon to be great.

Players Like Anouby, Markannan, and Kuzma are in that next Class.

Mason is in the Top 10 conversation. Fox has really played himself out of that.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#43
And, on the other side of the coin, Gerald Wallace had tons of talent, was lazy and got exposed to the expansion draft because of it. He DID put in the work and became a pretty good player, but it took him getting the ego slapped out of him. It wasn't about his age as much as it was about him finally facing the "come to Jesus" moment and recognizing it for what it was.

Like you said, "If a player puts in the hard work, he'll get better."
Whatever it takes to get the lights to come on is all that matters. With some, it never comes on. And in some cases, a player is so talented he still ends up being a good player without ever improving. I always thought that Derrick Coleman was supremely talented, but never reached the level he could have if he had put in the work. But, he was an all star player despite that. Then you have Dwight Howard who did just fine when he had all of his athleticism. But now, with that same athleticism slowing eroding, he has nothing else to fall back on. Bottom line is, it's up to each individual. The most difficult thing to judge with a young player is his desire. Some talk the talk but never walk the walk. And then you get the quiet one's like Kawhi Leonard, who improves every year. Not an accident...
 
#44
Really! You have to be kidding me. Your going to use those guys as examples of why players don't improve after a certain age. Your losing all credibility with me, and I don't want that to happen amigo. Those guys didn't much talent to start with. Look, how good a player becomes, and for how long he continues to improve is up to the player. Donte Greene came here with all the talent in the world, and didn't get much better. Why? Because he was lazy. He didn't put in the work!!!! Some players don't have the talent to begin with. At least not NBA talent. That was the case with Thabeet. I predicted he wouldn't be a good player when he was at UCONN. He had no skill level other than blocking shots. Fortunately for him, in college you can plant yourself under the basket (no defensive 3 second rule) and just swat away shots. Unfortunately for him, you can't do that in the NBA.

For every player you can show me that didn't improve, I can show you 10 that did. But it's an individual thing. If a player puts in the hard work, he'll get better. How much better depends on the god given abilities he starts with. All players aren't created equal. Vince Carter started out as an athletic freak, but as he got older, and his athleticism started to diminish, he worked hard and made himself into a better shooter, etc. All that well after the age of 26 or 27. I don't know if you remember the original Zach Randolph at Portland, but the player he is now is a far better version of that player, and lot of that developed after the age of 26 or 27 years of age. I got better as a player as I got older. Just the experience of playing the game made me better.

Believe what you want, but I've been watching NBA basketball for over 50 years. I watched a 36 year old Wilt Chamberlain school a young Jabbar in the finals. It's an individual thing.
I accidentally used age 25 instead of 24. There are no major differences between the two seasons for the players. If I had used 24 instead, it would actually strengthen my argument more regarding this specific class. No jumps for Frye or Paul.

I'm going to examine the 2005 NBA draft class. It came at random picking. I'll examine the stats of the top 15 draft picks at age 25(which is the age I referenced in my argument) then compare it to their career averages up until the age of 30(common age of peak/start of decline). I will put in blue the players who have had at least +5ppg, +5%FG , or +3apg jumps. Meanwhile, I put players who decline by -3ppg, -3%FG, or -1.5apg in red. Players who make reasonable improvements or declines will not be colored. [p.s.The reason why I have -3ppg instead of -5ppg is because it's much easier to play worse than it is to play better.]

1. Andrew Bogut
  • (Age 25) 32.3mins: 15.9pts/10.2rebs/2.R5blks/1.8asts on 52/0/62.9
  • (26-30) 28.0mins: 8.5pts/9.4rebs/2.0blks/2.1asts on 52.8/0/45.1
2. Marvin Williams
  • 26.3mins: 10.2pts/5.2rebs/0.8blks/1.2asts on 43.2/38.9/78.8
  • 26.9mins: 9.4pts/5.4rebs/0.6blks/1.3asts on 43.3/36.4/80.8
3. Deron Williams
  • 36.9mins: 18.7pts/10.5asts/4rebs/1.2stls on 46.9/37.1/80.1
  • 34.8mins: 17.4pts/7.9asts/3.3rebs/1.1stls on 42.5/35.6/84
4. Chris Paul
  • 36.0mins: 15.9pts/9.8asts/4.1rebs/2.4stls on 46.3/38.8/87.8
  • 34.4mins: 18.9pts/9.9asts/4.1rebs/2.3stls on 47.5/37.0/88.0
5. Raymond Felton
  • 33.0mins: 12.1pts/5.6asts/3.6rebs/1.5stls on 45.9/38.5/76.3
  • 31.2mins: 11.9pts/6.0asts/2.8rebs/1.3stls on 41.6/33.7/78.6
6. Charlie Villanueva
  • 23.7mins: 11.9pts/4.7rebs/0.7blks/0.7asts on 43.9/35.1/81.5
  • 15.7mins: 7.8pts/3.2rebs/0.5blks/0.5asts on 41.2/36.2/67.9
7. Channing Frye
  • 11.8mins: 4.2pts/2.2rebs/0.3blks/0.3asts on 42.3/33.3/72.2
  • 28.7mins: 11.4pts/5.7rebs/0.9blk/1.3asts on 43.3/38.9/83.5
8. Yaroslav Korolev, bust. was in the league for for 2 years and never saw an NBA floor after age 19.

9. Antoine Wright
  • 20.8mins: 6.5rebs 2.8rebs 1.1asts 0.4stls on 40.6/33.5/68.6
  • Out of the league after age 25, spent 7 games with the Kings.
10. Joey Graham
  • 8.7mins: 3.6pts 1.8rebs 0.4asts
  • 16mins: 5.9pts 2.8rebs 0.5asts
11. Hakim Warrick
  • 23.4mins: 11.4pts/4.7rebs/0.7asts on 50.2/0/70.4
  • 19.9mins: 9.2pts/4.0rebs/0.8asts on 47.9/0/72.3
12. Nate Robinson
  • 19.9mins: 10.1pts/2.9asts/2rebs on 43.6/39/74.6
  • 20.7mins: 9.9pts/3.3asts 1.8rebs on 41.6/36.3/80.3
13. Jarrett Jack
  • 33.1mins: 13.1pts/4.1asts/1.1stl on 45.3/35.3/85.2
  • 27.4mins: 11.2pts/4.6asts/0.7stl on 44.2/37.1/84.8
14. Francisco Garcia
  • 17.8mins: 6pts/2.6rebs/1.1asts on 42.9/35.6/83.3
  • 24.7mins: 10.1pts/2.8rebs/1.5asts on 44.3/37.1/80.9

I ended up doing the top 20, and unfortunately, a bunch of guys from this class were affected by injuries, so I left them out. They include Webster, Diogu, May, McCants, Granger, Bynum, and more.

Now analyzing the stats. Out of 14, there's only 1 player who made a significant numerical jump in their game after age 25, and it Channing Frye. It's a significant jump because he went from a backup player to a rotational starter. However, I don't think I'd consider it a large jump. 4/14 of these players actually declined from their stats they put up age 25. Bogut's single major injury wasn't enough for me to put him as an exception, although you could argue it has affected him. Simply put, these players got worse after age 25. The rest of them? Marvin Williams has been about the same. Hasn't necessarily improved or declined. CP3 had a big scoring jump, but it wasn't significant enough, age 25 is actually his lowest career scoring ppg season after having several 20ppg seasons. In this span, he went from a top 10 PG to a top 5 PG which is a reasonable jump. Same with Deron Williams. Went from a top 10 PG to a top 5 PG which is a good, but also reasonable jump. Felton has relatively stayed the same, no real improvement or decline. Joey Graham slightly improved, but not by much. Went from a 13th man to a 10th man, nothing out of the realm. Warrick didn't improve nor decline. Neither did Robinson and Jack who stayed the same. Garcia has a big numbers jump in PPG, which is more reflective of his MPG increase than anything. He went from a backup SF to a rotational player which is a reasonable improvement.

It's hard to argue this. It's even extremely hard to find any players who make grand improvements after age 25. It's extremely common that where they are at age 25, is not far off of where they will be in the future. A few times, you can expect reasonable improvements like Chris Paul did going from a top 10 PG to a top 5 PG. Or like Cisco going from a backup SF to a rotational player. HOWEVER, in this case, I found no players who made huge jumps in their games. I found no one who went from a backup player to a good starting player. Nor did I find anyone who went from a solid starting player to a great player. why? because it's extremely rare. Most of these players barely got any better than they already were.

I didn't have to do this, but I did. I never said players can't improve. I said players don't make big improvements after a certain age. I have no clue how that is outrageous or egregious when it's a consensus in the NBA. I don't even know why this was made out to be such a big deal. Imo, the age I set was 24, someone else might differ, but the argument still remains.

Go back and re-read my argument. I feel like you misinterpreted something. I said players can only get so much better after a certain age, in which I referenced age 24.

I said a 24yearold who's a 40/100 would have a peak of 60/100. Someone who's a 70/100 could have a peak of 90/100. These are extremely favorable numbers for them. As I analyzed the 2005 class, most didn't even have the cap of 20pt jumps. In fact, only about 2 of them did.. CP3 and Williams.
 

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
#45
I will put in blue the players who have had at least +5ppg, +5%FG , or +3apg jumps. Meanwhile, I put players who decline by -3ppg, -3%FG, or -1.5apg in red. Players who make reasonable improvements or declines will not be colored. [p.s.The reason why I have -3ppg instead of -5ppg is because it's much easier to play worse than it is to play better.
It seems to me that you've done it backwards. If it's easier to play worse, then shouldn't you require a player who plays worse to have a larger drop, and a player who plays better to have a smaller improvement?
 
#47
I accidentally used age 25 instead of 24. There are no major differences between the two seasons for the players. If I had used 24 instead, it would actually strengthen my argument more regarding this specific class. No jumps for Frye or Paul.

I'm going to examine the 2005 NBA draft class. It came at random picking. I'll examine the stats of the top 15 draft picks at age 25(which is the age I referenced in my argument) then compare it to their career averages up until the age of 30(common age of peak/start of decline). I will put in blue the players who have had at least +5ppg, +5%FG , or +3apg jumps. Meanwhile, I put players who decline by -3ppg, -3%FG, or -1.5apg in red. Players who make reasonable improvements or declines will not be colored. [p.s.The reason why I have -3ppg instead of -5ppg is because it's much easier to play worse than it is to play better.]

1. Andrew Bogut
  • (Age 25) 32.3mins: 15.9pts/10.2rebs/2.R5blks/1.8asts on 52/0/62.9
  • (26-30) 28.0mins: 8.5pts/9.4rebs/2.0blks/2.1asts on 52.8/0/45.1
2. Marvin Williams
  • 26.3mins: 10.2pts/5.2rebs/0.8blks/1.2asts on 43.2/38.9/78.8
  • 26.9mins: 9.4pts/5.4rebs/0.6blks/1.3asts on 43.3/36.4/80.8
3. Deron Williams
  • 36.9mins: 18.7pts/10.5asts/4rebs/1.2stls on 46.9/37.1/80.1
  • 34.8mins: 17.4pts/7.9asts/3.3rebs/1.1stls on 42.5/35.6/84
4. Chris Paul
  • 36.0mins: 15.9pts/9.8asts/4.1rebs/2.4stls on 46.3/38.8/87.8
  • 34.4mins: 18.9pts/9.9asts/4.1rebs/2.3stls on 47.5/37.0/88.0
5. Raymond Felton
  • 33.0mins: 12.1pts/5.6asts/3.6rebs/1.5stls on 45.9/38.5/76.3
  • 31.2mins: 11.9pts/6.0asts/2.8rebs/1.3stls on 41.6/33.7/78.6
6. Charlie Villanueva
  • 23.7mins: 11.9pts/4.7rebs/0.7blks/0.7asts on 43.9/35.1/81.5
  • 15.7mins: 7.8pts/3.2rebs/0.5blks/0.5asts on 41.2/36.2/67.9
7. Channing Frye
  • 11.8mins: 4.2pts/2.2rebs/0.3blks/0.3asts on 42.3/33.3/72.2
  • 28.7mins: 11.4pts/5.7rebs/0.9blk/1.3asts on 43.3/38.9/83.5
8. Yaroslav Korolev, bust. was in the league for for 2 years and never saw an NBA floor after age 19.

9. Antoine Wright
  • 20.8mins: 6.5rebs 2.8rebs 1.1asts 0.4stls on 40.6/33.5/68.6
  • Out of the league after age 25, spent 7 games with the Kings.
10. Joey Graham
  • 8.7mins: 3.6pts 1.8rebs 0.4asts
  • 16mins: 5.9pts 2.8rebs 0.5asts
11. Hakim Warrick
  • 23.4mins: 11.4pts/4.7rebs/0.7asts on 50.2/0/70.4
  • 19.9mins: 9.2pts/4.0rebs/0.8asts on 47.9/0/72.3
12. Nate Robinson
  • 19.9mins: 10.1pts/2.9asts/2rebs on 43.6/39/74.6
  • 20.7mins: 9.9pts/3.3asts 1.8rebs on 41.6/36.3/80.3
13. Jarrett Jack
  • 33.1mins: 13.1pts/4.1asts/1.1stl on 45.3/35.3/85.2
  • 27.4mins: 11.2pts/4.6asts/0.7stl on 44.2/37.1/84.8
14. Francisco Garcia
  • 17.8mins: 6pts/2.6rebs/1.1asts on 42.9/35.6/83.3
  • 24.7mins: 10.1pts/2.8rebs/1.5asts on 44.3/37.1/80.9

I ended up doing the top 20, and unfortunately, a bunch of guys from this class were affected by injuries, so I left them out. They include Webster, Diogu, May, McCants, Granger, Bynum, and more.

Now analyzing the stats. Out of 14, there's only 1 player who made a significant numerical jump in their game after age 25, and it Channing Frye. It's a significant jump because he went from a backup player to a rotational starter. However, I don't think I'd consider it a large jump. 4/14 of these players actually declined from their stats they put up age 25. Bogut's single major injury wasn't enough for me to put him as an exception, although you could argue it has affected him. Simply put, these players got worse after age 25. The rest of them? Marvin Williams has been about the same. Hasn't necessarily improved or declined. CP3 had a big scoring jump, but it wasn't significant enough, age 25 is actually his lowest career scoring ppg season after having several 20ppg seasons. In this span, he went from a top 10 PG to a top 5 PG which is a reasonable jump. Same with Deron Williams. Went from a top 10 PG to a top 5 PG which is a good, but also reasonable jump. Felton has relatively stayed the same, no real improvement or decline. Joey Graham slightly improved, but not by much. Went from a 13th man to a 10th man, nothing out of the realm. Warrick didn't improve nor decline. Neither did Robinson and Jack who stayed the same. Garcia has a big numbers jump in PPG, which is more reflective of his MPG increase than anything. He went from a backup SF to a rotational player which is a reasonable improvement.

It's hard to argue this. It's even extremely hard to find any players who make grand improvements after age 25. It's extremely common that where they are at age 25, is not far off of where they will be in the future. A few times, you can expect reasonable improvements like Chris Paul did going from a top 10 PG to a top 5 PG. Or like Cisco going from a backup SF to a rotational player. HOWEVER, in this case, I found no players who made huge jumps in their games. I found no one who went from a backup player to a good starting player. Nor did I find anyone who went from a solid starting player to a great player. why? because it's extremely rare. Most of these players barely got any better than they already were.

I didn't have to do this, but I did. I never said players can't improve. I said players don't make big improvements after a certain age. I have no clue how that is outrageous or egregious when it's a consensus in the NBA. I don't even know why this was made out to be such a big deal. Imo, the age I set was 24, someone else might differ, but the argument still remains.

Go back and re-read my argument. I feel like you misinterpreted something. I said players can only get so much better after a certain age, in which I referenced age 24.

I said a 24yearold who's a 40/100 would have a peak of 60/100. Someone who's a 70/100 could have a peak of 90/100. These are extremely favorable numbers for them. As I analyzed the 2005 class, most didn't even have the cap of 20pt jumps. In fact, only about 2 of them did.. CP3 and Williams.
I don't know for sure but I feel like the numbers would look a bit different if you used guys that stayed in college for 4 years. Your point would still stand but I don't think it would be swayed quite as much. I just feel like the older rookies improve more from 24-26 than the 19 year olds do during the same age range just due to the adjustments they need to make at the NBA level. Either way it's not like many guys have gone from scrub to good starters during that age range so your point stands.

What grades on your 100 scale would you give the "older" young guys in WCS, Hield, Bogdan and Mason so far?
 

gunks

Hall of Famer
#48
I was talking about how Vlade has set us up at PG, not his overall draft pickups last season. Mason already looks like a legit backup. We're still banking on potential with Fox, but if he figures out how to shoot, he's a star (and yes, I'm aware that this has been said about many a bust).

If we wanna grade Vlade on the overall draft, he definitely could have done better (hindsight is 20/20 and all that - it woulda been pretty nice if he drafted your guy Mitchell at 10).

OG might be better than JJ (ok, he's definitely better than JJ), but I don't think OG would be a very good point guard.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#49
I accidentally used age 25 instead of 24. There are no major differences between the two seasons for the players. If I had used 24 instead, it would actually strengthen my argument more regarding this specific class. No jumps for Frye or Paul.

I'm going to examine the 2005 NBA draft class. It came at random picking. I'll examine the stats of the top 15 draft picks at age 25(which is the age I referenced in my argument) then compare it to their career averages up until the age of 30(common age of peak/start of decline). I will put in blue the players who have had at least +5ppg, +5%FG , or +3apg jumps. Meanwhile, I put players who decline by -3ppg, -3%FG, or -1.5apg in red. Players who make reasonable improvements or declines will not be colored. [p.s.The reason why I have -3ppg instead of -5ppg is because it's much easier to play worse than it is to play better.]

1. Andrew Bogut
  • (Age 25) 32.3mins: 15.9pts/10.2rebs/2.R5blks/1.8asts on 52/0/62.9
  • (26-30) 28.0mins: 8.5pts/9.4rebs/2.0blks/2.1asts on 52.8/0/45.1
2. Marvin Williams
  • 26.3mins: 10.2pts/5.2rebs/0.8blks/1.2asts on 43.2/38.9/78.8
  • 26.9mins: 9.4pts/5.4rebs/0.6blks/1.3asts on 43.3/36.4/80.8
3. Deron Williams
  • 36.9mins: 18.7pts/10.5asts/4rebs/1.2stls on 46.9/37.1/80.1
  • 34.8mins: 17.4pts/7.9asts/3.3rebs/1.1stls on 42.5/35.6/84
4. Chris Paul
  • 36.0mins: 15.9pts/9.8asts/4.1rebs/2.4stls on 46.3/38.8/87.8
  • 34.4mins: 18.9pts/9.9asts/4.1rebs/2.3stls on 47.5/37.0/88.0
5. Raymond Felton
  • 33.0mins: 12.1pts/5.6asts/3.6rebs/1.5stls on 45.9/38.5/76.3
  • 31.2mins: 11.9pts/6.0asts/2.8rebs/1.3stls on 41.6/33.7/78.6
6. Charlie Villanueva
  • 23.7mins: 11.9pts/4.7rebs/0.7blks/0.7asts on 43.9/35.1/81.5
  • 15.7mins: 7.8pts/3.2rebs/0.5blks/0.5asts on 41.2/36.2/67.9
7. Channing Frye
  • 11.8mins: 4.2pts/2.2rebs/0.3blks/0.3asts on 42.3/33.3/72.2
  • 28.7mins: 11.4pts/5.7rebs/0.9blk/1.3asts on 43.3/38.9/83.5
8. Yaroslav Korolev, bust. was in the league for for 2 years and never saw an NBA floor after age 19.

9. Antoine Wright
  • 20.8mins: 6.5rebs 2.8rebs 1.1asts 0.4stls on 40.6/33.5/68.6
  • Out of the league after age 25, spent 7 games with the Kings.
10. Joey Graham
  • 8.7mins: 3.6pts 1.8rebs 0.4asts
  • 16mins: 5.9pts 2.8rebs 0.5asts
11. Hakim Warrick
  • 23.4mins: 11.4pts/4.7rebs/0.7asts on 50.2/0/70.4
  • 19.9mins: 9.2pts/4.0rebs/0.8asts on 47.9/0/72.3
12. Nate Robinson
  • 19.9mins: 10.1pts/2.9asts/2rebs on 43.6/39/74.6
  • 20.7mins: 9.9pts/3.3asts 1.8rebs on 41.6/36.3/80.3
13. Jarrett Jack
  • 33.1mins: 13.1pts/4.1asts/1.1stl on 45.3/35.3/85.2
  • 27.4mins: 11.2pts/4.6asts/0.7stl on 44.2/37.1/84.8
14. Francisco Garcia
  • 17.8mins: 6pts/2.6rebs/1.1asts on 42.9/35.6/83.3
  • 24.7mins: 10.1pts/2.8rebs/1.5asts on 44.3/37.1/80.9

I ended up doing the top 20, and unfortunately, a bunch of guys from this class were affected by injuries, so I left them out. They include Webster, Diogu, May, McCants, Granger, Bynum, and more.

Now analyzing the stats. Out of 14, there's only 1 player who made a significant numerical jump in their game after age 25, and it Channing Frye. It's a significant jump because he went from a backup player to a rotational starter. However, I don't think I'd consider it a large jump. 4/14 of these players actually declined from their stats they put up age 25. Bogut's single major injury wasn't enough for me to put him as an exception, although you could argue it has affected him. Simply put, these players got worse after age 25. The rest of them? Marvin Williams has been about the same. Hasn't necessarily improved or declined. CP3 had a big scoring jump, but it wasn't significant enough, age 25 is actually his lowest career scoring ppg season after having several 20ppg seasons. In this span, he went from a top 10 PG to a top 5 PG which is a reasonable jump. Same with Deron Williams. Went from a top 10 PG to a top 5 PG which is a good, but also reasonable jump. Felton has relatively stayed the same, no real improvement or decline. Joey Graham slightly improved, but not by much. Went from a 13th man to a 10th man, nothing out of the realm. Warrick didn't improve nor decline. Neither did Robinson and Jack who stayed the same. Garcia has a big numbers jump in PPG, which is more reflective of his MPG increase than anything. He went from a backup SF to a rotational player which is a reasonable improvement.

It's hard to argue this. It's even extremely hard to find any players who make grand improvements after age 25. It's extremely common that where they are at age 25, is not far off of where they will be in the future. A few times, you can expect reasonable improvements like Chris Paul did going from a top 10 PG to a top 5 PG. Or like Cisco going from a backup SF to a rotational player. HOWEVER, in this case, I found no players who made huge jumps in their games. I found no one who went from a backup player to a good starting player. Nor did I find anyone who went from a solid starting player to a great player. why? because it's extremely rare. Most of these players barely got any better than they already were.

I didn't have to do this, but I did. I never said players can't improve. I said players don't make big improvements after a certain age. I have no clue how that is outrageous or egregious when it's a consensus in the NBA. I don't even know why this was made out to be such a big deal. Imo, the age I set was 24, someone else might differ, but the argument still remains.

Go back and re-read my argument. I feel like you misinterpreted something. I said players can only get so much better after a certain age, in which I referenced age 24.

I said a 24yearold who's a 40/100 would have a peak of 60/100. Someone who's a 70/100 could have a peak of 90/100. These are extremely favorable numbers for them. As I analyzed the 2005 class, most didn't even have the cap of 20pt jumps. In fact, only about 2 of them did.. CP3 and Williams.
Look, we could argue this all day long and still not convince one another. All I'll say is that stats alone don't tell the story. They're a part of the story. Curry is going to be 30 years old in march, and there's no way in hell that you'd convince me that he's not a better player now than he was at age 24. But aside from that, stats in a way are an abstract argument. It's like looking up the stat of how many people were eaten by sharks last year and taking that as an absolute. Problem is, Sharks can't talk, and when you add in how many people simply disappeared at sea without knowing their fate, it becomes an abstract argument. It's the same with stats. We don't know what's being asked of a player by his coach. A player can actually have less points, or less assists, but be more valuable to the team. The fact that said player is willing and able to adapt, makes him a better player. Something that Hill seems to be struggling with right now.

If you were to look at Wilt Chamberlain's stats at toward the end of his career, you'd think his skills were diminishing. His scoring took a considerable dip. But the truth is, the Lakers who had acquired him in the offseason asked him to sacrifice his scoring and play tougher defense and rebound. Which he did, and they won a championship. But the dip in his offense had nothing to do with his ability. Point is, without taking each individual separately and looking at the facts you don't have an accurate picture. Your trying to paint with a broad stroke, when it always comes down to the individual, how hard they work and how well they take care of their body.

With me, number one, I'm not a stat guy. I go more with what I see with my own eyes. I think stats, while useful, can also be deceiving when judging a player. But I don't disregard them. Number two, I hate generalizations. I believe each player should be judged as an individual and not just shoved into a group. I've seen players get labeled early on, and then struggle to remove that label. Some never do despite their best efforts. Ergo, making a general statement that players can't improve after 24, or any age skill wise runs contrary to to what I believe, and what I've seen with my own eye's. I agree that some players don't improve, but usually that has something to do with their god given abilities and/or lack of hard work. Players like Derrick Williams have the reputation of being lazy and not working hard, so do we use him as an example in a generalization of how players can't improve after a certain age?

As I'm getting tired of this discussion, this will be my last response on the subject. I have too many college games that I've recorded to watch. Fell behind when my daughter came to visit. Gotta have priorities!!
 
#50
I don't know for sure but I feel like the numbers would look a bit different if you used guys that stayed in college for 4 years. Your point would still stand but I don't think it would be swayed quite as much. I just feel like the older rookies improve more from 24-26 than the 19 year olds do during the same age range just due to the adjustments they need to make at the NBA level. Either way it's not like many guys have gone from scrub to good starters during that age range so your point stands.

What grades on your 100 scale would you give the "older" young guys in WCS, Hield, Bogdan and Mason so far?
Not sure if I'm misunderstanding your point, but are you saying that 19yearolds don't improve as much when they're 24 to 26, compared to older rookies during that age frame? I think the 19yearold already made the significant jump earlier in their career(but it might happen through 2-4 seasons). A 23yearold is a more established basketball player and they have less "figuring out to do". By the time that 19yearold rookie turns 24, they might be at the same level, or even ahead of that 28yearold.

For a point of reference(in no specific order):
90-100: Superstars, elites: Lebron, Durant, Curry, Harden
80-90: All-Stars Tier 1: AD, Lillard, DeRozan
70-80: All-Stars Tier 2: Butler, Walker, Klay
60-70: Good Starters: Lowry, Middleton, Drummond
50-60: Average Starters: Teague, Bradley, Covington, Ariza
40-50: Fringe Starters: Beverly, Collison, Zeller, Bazemore
30-40: First-Subs in: Rivers, Belinelli, Bojan
20-30: Back-up players: Mills, Temple, Koufos
10-20: Rotational players: Sampson, Larkin, Moreland
0-10: 13th man: Cooley

Here's their current ratings compared to peaks
Hield: 43/100______63/100
Bogdan: 35/100______55/100
Mason: 25/100______??? 45/100
I'd still want to see a full year from Bogdan and Mason. Bogdan could still be adjusting to the NBA right now since it's only 1/3 the way in to his first year. Mason is given a ? mark because he's 23. I projected by 24yearsold, the general player's peak would only increase by 20pts from then on. Of course, this is pretty subjective. One might think Buddy is worse than 43pts. Another might thing Bogdan is more of a 45pt player.

Willie didn't get rated because he's too inconsistent..aka I don't know how good he wants himself to be every night.
 

kingsboi

Hall of Famer
#52
Not sure if I'm misunderstanding your point, but are you saying that 19yearolds don't improve as much when they're 24 to 26, compared to older rookies during that age frame? I think the 19yearold already made the significant jump earlier in their career(but it might happen through 2-4 seasons). A 23yearold is a more established basketball player and they have less "figuring out to do". By the time that 19yearold rookie turns 24, they might be at the same level, or even ahead of that 28yearold.

For a point of reference(in no specific order):
90-100: Superstars, elites: Lebron, Durant, Curry, Harden
80-90: All-Stars Tier 1: AD, Lillard, DeRozan
70-80: All-Stars Tier 2: Butler, Walker, Klay
60-70: Good Starters: Lowry, Middleton, Drummond
50-60: Average Starters: Teague, Bradley, Covington, Ariza
40-50: Fringe Starters: Beverly, Collison, Zeller, Bazemore
30-40: First-Subs in: Rivers, Belinelli, Bojan
20-30: Back-up players: Mills, Temple, Koufos
10-20: Rotational players: Sampson, Larkin, Moreland
0-10: 13th man: Cooley

Here's their current ratings compared to peaks
Hield: 43/100______63/100
Bogdan: 35/100______55/100
Mason: 25/100______??? 45/100
I'd still want to see a full year from Bogdan and Mason. Bogdan could still be adjusting to the NBA right now since it's only 1/3 the way in to his first year. Mason is given a ? mark because he's 23. I projected by 24yearsold, the general player's peak would only increase by 20pts from then on. Of course, this is pretty subjective. One might think Buddy is worse than 43pts. Another might thing Bogdan is more of a 45pt player.

Willie didn't get rated because he's too inconsistent..aka I don't know how good he wants himself to be every night.
You wouldn't put AD in the elite category? He made the playoffs with Tyreke being his second option in the West, yes, he got swept by the Dubs, but that's elite to me considering the circumstances.
 
#53
Is this your own ratings scale that you made up?
yeah, it's just my own personal rankings

You wouldn't put AD in the elite category? He made the playoffs with Tyreke being his second option in the West, yes, he got swept by the Dubs, but that's elite to me considering the circumstances.
honestly, no. I think the only elite superstars in the NBA are Lebron, Durant, Curry, and Harden. AD could eventually reach that status. He's still only 24.

Those elite superstars are guys who can win with any roster and any system. They could take our team and immediately take them deep into the playoffs. AD is a very good player, but he's not at that level yet.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#54
Not sure if I'm misunderstanding your point, but are you saying that 19yearolds don't improve as much when they're 24 to 26, compared to older rookies during that age frame? I think the 19yearold already made the significant jump earlier in their career(but it might happen through 2-4 seasons). A 23yearold is a more established basketball player and they have less "figuring out to do". By the time that 19yearold rookie turns 24, they might be at the same level, or even ahead of that 28yearold.

For a point of reference(in no specific order):
90-100: Superstars, elites: Lebron, Durant, Curry, Harden
80-90: All-Stars Tier 1: AD, Lillard, DeRozan
70-80: All-Stars Tier 2: Butler, Walker, Klay
60-70: Good Starters: Lowry, Middleton, Drummond
50-60: Average Starters: Teague, Bradley, Covington, Ariza
40-50: Fringe Starters: Beverly, Collison, Zeller, Bazemore
30-40: First-Subs in: Rivers, Belinelli, Bojan
20-30: Back-up players: Mills, Temple, Koufos
10-20: Rotational players: Sampson, Larkin, Moreland
0-10: 13th man: Cooley

Here's their current ratings compared to peaks
Hield: 43/100______63/100
Bogdan: 35/100______55/100
Mason: 25/100______??? 45/100
I'd still want to see a full year from Bogdan and Mason. Bogdan could still be adjusting to the NBA right now since it's only 1/3 the way in to his first year. Mason is given a ? mark because he's 23. I projected by 24yearsold, the general player's peak would only increase by 20pts from then on. Of course, this is pretty subjective. One might think Buddy is worse than 43pts. Another might thing Bogdan is more of a 45pt player.

Willie didn't get rated because he's too inconsistent..aka I don't know how good he wants himself to be every night.
First, let me simplify it for you. I'm saying that any player, regardless of age that puts in the work will improve their game. How much that player will improve will be determined by his god given abilities. Therefore there is probably a limit to how good any individual player can be. In my opinion, quite a few players in the NBA never reach their limit. Those limits have to do with how fast you can run, how high you can jump. How good your hand/eye coordination is. Etc!!! That's as simple as I can make. It's not complicated. Put in the work, and you'll get better.

I'll say it again. It's an individual thing. You can't paint everyone with a broad stroke. A player can have all the ability in the world, but lack desire, or lack the natural instincts necessary to play the game. I had someone I respect, an NBA great, tell me that maybe the greatest basketball player in the world never played basketball. Maybe he played baseball instead, and was just mediocre at it. Or vice versa. Your trying to lock everyone into a neat little package, and it doesn't work that way. Looks good on a spread sheet though. By the way, I don't understand your grading system. I get the numbers, but on what basis do you grade each player. Is is just your personal opinion, or is there some system your using?

One last thing, and I can't emphasis it enough. When you take individualism out of the picture, you lose all ability to judge any player. There are too many factors that add up to that judgement. When did he start playing the game? Who coached him? Did he go through any late growth spurts? What's his work ethic? What kind of on court motor does he have? I could go on and on, and all those things need to be taken into consideration when deciding how good you think a player might be in the future. What you see now, is not what you'll see two, three, or ten years from now. And what you'll see then, will be determined by how hard that player works on his game, and the coaching staff of whatever team he's on. Sometimes it comes down to opportunity, and the system he plays in. A player is not just a number on a stat sheet. We expect him to play at his peak performance at all times, which is unreasonable. They don't get to call in sick with a head cold like we do. Their not robots!!!!