NBA players peak at 24 years old and basically stay at that level until they turn 25, at which point they start declining, according to a study by Dave Berri, a professor of economics at Southern Utah University. Mr. Berri's research, which examined every player from 1977-2008, says the statistical output of the average 24-year-old is equal in value to six wins per season for his team if he plays 35 minutes a night. From then on, the average player keeps getting worse each year until age 35, at which point he begins costing his team wins. Of course, not everyone fits the mold. Kobe Bryant, 31, peaked at 24 (he was worth the equivalent of 15.5 wins a year if he played 35 minutes a game) but he's still nearly as productive this season (14.3 wins).

---

Just say no to Nate.

oohah wrote:Which Begs the question: Why is it championship teams are rarely led by a pack of 24 year old players?

It seems to me that this study lacks perspective.

oohah

exactly.. which is why Jordan won his first ring at age 28 I think... then the study uses the term"average player".. ok, how does it define average?

djsunyc wrote:waive david lee...he's over the hill.

So Toronto can pick him up? Ha!

David has a multifaceded game. Nate has athleticism. One of those things ages better than the other.

franco12 wrote:I thought this thread was going to explain why Duhon has turned to garbage this year

For that, you might want to look elsewhere. If AA has website, I think it would be a start.

There is something to the fact that a lot of players look great initially and then fall off a bit. Amare, Bynum, Frye, etc...

It might be that guys who were good and injury free in their early 20s have a greater chance of eventually becoming injured and hurting their win share in their later 20s. Most players get injured at one time or another so if it happens in your late 20s that will make your early 20s seem better.

Or perhaps they relax after signing that big contract. perhaps they become more selfish, using a bit of retrospective rationality "Hey they're paying me this much, i must be good enough to jack up 20 shots a game and to hell with team play". Rookies are notoriously willing to defer to ther teammates and in effect "play the right way" by sharing the ball, keeping the offense humming along instead of stagnating it and succumbing to black-hole style play which hurts their win shares as well.

So in summation, the data doesn't lie to us. But the interpretation might be misunderstood. Its maybe not totally fair to say that these athletes have peaked physically... true injuries are physical things but there could be mental reasons for a worsening of win share output. Those mental reasons are complacency and selfishness.

tkf wrote:

oohah wrote:Which Begs the question: Why is it championship teams are rarely led by a pack of 24 year old players?

It seems to me that this study lacks perspective.

oohah

exactly.. which is why Jordan won his first ring at age 28 I think... then the study uses the term"average player".. ok, how does it define average?

Take a look at the knicks roster, there's a bunch