i dont get this team

CruzDude's got it; we're playing our younger players, but they are more "young" in terms of the sense that they're all still trying to prove themselves and carve a niche in the league. We've got a solid blend of "young" homegrown talent (Garcia, Douby, Hawes, Williams) and we've got a solid blend of "young" diamond-in-the-roughs (Udrih, D. Jones). With the exception of Hawes, all the players listed above are within the 23-27 age bracket; not terribly young, but definitely, definitely not terribly old. Hell, these players are essentially the core of our bench. Garcia's actually older than he plays, but the talent is undeniable, and Douby's do-or-die season has shifted one notch up after a series of good back-to-back games.

What's most intriguing to me, however, is how we have converted those "supposedly" destined bench players into legitimate starters; case in point, both Beno Udrih and John Salmons. Both of these guys had the label "does a little bit of everything, but not terribly good at anything" on them at drafttime, and both got drafted in the mid-to-late 1st round accordingly moreso for production as opposed to potential. And, not surprisingly, with those labels and few playing time to spare, both players got dumped by their first teams. It seems like almost a feel-good story, to me, how the combination of these players has translated into moderate success, given our talent level, in the past couple of games. Beno Udrih has shown extra penetration ability and crisp, offense-oriented passing as well as the defensive intangibles that I, at least, thought he once lacked, and John Salmons has really channeled All-star scoring levels, not to mention his already solid all-around abilities from prior years. This almost has to make me wonder whether the Grizzlies' dump, Dahntay Jones, would go through the "prove the naysayers wrong" sort of event and play well with us. He's already shown a flair for dunking and the type of athleticism we need at the wing positions, and needless to say he's been impressive. He can definitely be the next player to take the step with us.
 
What's most intriguing to me, however, is how we have converted those "supposedly" destined bench players into legitimate starters;
We haven't converted anyone. These "supposedly" (to use your word) legitimate starters are only in that position because better players are injured. They weren't/aren't Day 1 starters, and when the injured players come back, they're not going to be starting... they sure don't sound like "legitimate" starters to me...

Like I said before, there are at least fifty guys in the league that could do what Salmons is doing, given the same opportunity. And the same goes for Udrih.
 
Yeah, Dahntay has sure got Douby's juices flowing and his overall hustle is getting Douby minutes for sure.

Kings are dressing 10 players but KT gets virtually no minutes.

Four are on injured reserver: Martin, Bibby, Artest and SAR, whose there for the year.

Next week Bibby comes back and soon after Martin. Seems they have to come off the bench for a bit to get back in game shape so we don't have a meltdown type of situation again like when CWebb came back and jumped into the starting lineup and took the Kings down the tubes with him. Coach Reggie says who ever hustles more gets the minutes. hmmmmm.....

Then in about 2-3 weeks, RonRon hits the scene again. That dresses 13 players. Coach Reggie is playing 9 now. So which 4 start to sit big time?? Douby, KT, JusWill (?), and ????
 
My other point was that the best teams are older (on avg.) and that's fact, based on the link I provided. Arguing otherwise, is ignoring or not seeing clear statistics that point this out.

Oh. Let's look at the clear statistics, then. As I already pointed out, the 5 youngest teams win just slightly more games than the oldest 5.

Average ranking of the 5 oldest teams: 17.2
Average ranking of the 5 youngest teams: 14.8

Teams among the oldest 5 that are in the top 10: 1
Teams among the youngest 5 that are in the top 10: 2

OK, so this is not looking so good for the older teams. Let's try another approach and see if we can save their rep.

Average age for top 5 ranked teams: 27.46
Average age for bottom 5 ranked teams: 26.42

Average ranking of teams that are younger than average: 18
Average ranking of teams that are older than average: 12.33

Eureka! Well, sort of, it's only a year difference between worst and best, and not even close to the age extremes that exist (24.07-29.04). But it's something...

Then if you look at the rankings, what you see is that there is a huge clump of sucky teams that are less than a year younger than average, and another big clump of good teams, who are less than a year older than average. Teams younger or older than these tend to be very mixed. But then there's Boston, easily #1, who are almost exactly average.

24.07 Portland #7
25.38 Seattle #28
25.42 GoldenState #10
25.51 Atlanta #17
25.61 Utah #12
25.72 Chicago #21
25.73 Philadelphia #23
25.87 Memphis #26
25.90 LALakers #5
26.22 NewYork #27
26.37 Indiana #19
26.39 Minnesota #30
26.49 Milwaukee #20
26.59 Sacramento #22
26.61 Washington #14
26.62 Charlotte #24
26.90 Boston #1
26.91 NBAAverage
27.04 NewOrleans #6
27.15 Cleveland #18
27.46 Denver #9
27.52 Orlando #8
27.65 Detroit #2
27.70 Toronto #15
27.82 Dallas #4
28.26 Houston #13
28.26 Miami #29
28.43 NewJersey #16
28.86 LAClippers #25
29.04 Phoenix #3

I don't see any clear trend there, and I'm not ignoring anything. Yes, there are those clumps at slightly above and below average ages, but logically that should mean that teams go from their worst at age 26, to their best at age 27, then decline by 28. And that makes no sense.

Maybe there just isn't any real correlation, eh?
 
Oh. Let's look at the clear statistics, then. As I already pointed out, the 5 youngest teams win just slightly more games than the oldest 5.


I'll stop you here. You're talking records. Boston may end up with the best record of all time, but if they don't win the championship, they aren't the best team that year. I'm saying who are the better teams. The best team wins the championship. You left out the Spurs in your numbers and they are the oldest team on average (30.64) with essentially the same core over the past 5 years and in that 5 years they have won 3, count em 3 championships.

Who has been to the finals the past five years?
Spurs (Avg Age-30.6 or 1st oldest on avg) *champions '07,'05,'03*
Nets (Avg Age-28.43 or 4th oldest on avg) EC champions '02,'03
Heat (Avg Age-28.26 or 5th oldest on avg) *champions '06*
Mavericks (Avg Age-27.82 or 6th oldest on avg) WC champions '06
Pistons (Avg Age-27.65 or 8th oldest on avg) *champions '04*, EC champions '05
Cavs (Avg Age-27.15 or 10th oldest on avg) EC champions '07
Lakers (Avg Age-not relevant this year without shaq,horry,fox,fisher) *champions '00,'01,'02*, WC champions '04

Again the 'best' teams are the older teams.
 
I always bet my two fbest friends $100 a game when the kings play their two teams, Detroit and the Spurs respectively, straight up. I'm up $100 so far this year MWHAHAHAHA! And I'll take the kings against any team, any night, for at least 3 digits!!!.................As long as I get the spread
 
I'll stop you here. You're talking records.

Of course I am, you provided data for this year, with the rosters for this year. It's not going to be valid for past seasons.

But I did go ahead and pull out the figures for a couple of the teams you named, at random, to see how it looked with those old rosters.

Cavs, 2006-7, starting 5
ZI: 31.6
Hughes: 27.9
Gooden: 25.3
Pavlovic: 23.1
James: 22.0
Average: 25.98

Pistons, 2003-4
B. Wallace: 29.3
R. Wallace: 29.3
Billups: 27.3
Hamilton: 25.9
Prince: 23.8
Average: 27.12

Average for the 2 teams: 26.55 (4.5 months younger than the current NBA average)

That said, it's hard to really refute your statistical argument, since you haven't made one. If you want to take a turn and try to prove that the teams with the oldest players win all the trophies, be my guest.
 
Back
Top