PDA

View Full Version : Importance of longevity?



Chronz
08-24-2012, 02:26 PM
Say we have two players, one is clearly superior to the other, the other stayed in the NBA longer and maintained his effectiveness throughout.



Lets say from ages 21-29, Player A is clearly better. From 30-33 its a dead heat. But from ages 34-36 Player B is clearly better. From that point Player A has retired and Player B plays till hes 40 at a high level.

Which would you rather have?

KB-Pau-DH2012
08-24-2012, 02:28 PM
Is this another Kobe vs LeBron thread? :D

Chronz
08-24-2012, 02:30 PM
Is this another Kobe vs LeBron thread? :D

I dont want to ruin the surprise.

KB-Pau-DH2012
08-24-2012, 02:33 PM
If Player B is still putting his team in championship contention, even his mid to late 30s, then I have to go with Player B. He gives you a longer championship window than Player A.

Hawkeye15
08-24-2012, 02:34 PM
If Player B is still putting his team in championship contention, even his mid to late 30s, then I have to go with Player B. He gives you a longer championship window than Player A.

Off the top of my head, without actually seeing the difference in their level of play, I agree with you on this one.

StarvingKnick22
08-24-2012, 02:35 PM
whoever gives me the championship i really dont care

juster1028
08-24-2012, 02:36 PM
colbe bryan has an unserpassed legarcy of a player he once was a shell of his former legacy of himself and lebron is a rookie for 8 years ago :mad: so simetimes it make me think wow colbe is a long time employe for my busness or do i wan a efficien exmployee whio quit after 10 year or a long itm medium exmployee for 15 year u ask me idk :confused:

RealLiveBear
08-24-2012, 02:37 PM
If Player B is still putting his team in championship contention, even his mid to late 30s, then I have to go with Player B. He gives you a longer championship window than Player A.

2nd

b@llhog24
08-24-2012, 02:38 PM
Peak/Prime year should weigh more than longevity as long as the player in question has played more than 12 years.

#Shumpert Up
08-24-2012, 02:39 PM
I see what you did there. kobe vs lebron thread. very sneaky :clap: let the laker vs. heat fan battle begin

Chronz
08-24-2012, 02:39 PM
If Player B is still putting his team in championship contention, even his mid to late 30s, then I have to go with Player B. He gives you a longer championship window than Player A.

I wouldnt even know how to define that as an individual trait. How can 1 player put his team in contention? He likely gives you a longer championship window because of the fact that hes in the NBA longer and still playing at a high level, how big of an advantage he is would depend on his abilities for sure but lets just say these guys are still All-NBA caliber players.

Could this hold true for anyone? Would you rather take inferior player if he gives you many more years of service? I guess that prolly depends on the gap

Chronz
08-24-2012, 02:41 PM
I see what you did there. kobe vs lebron thread. very sneaky :clap: let the laker vs. heat fan battle begin

I didnt want to ruin the surprise but I would rather people focus on the issue.

The example given was a real life example but it could hold true in a variety of comparisons. Like Reed vs Ewing, MJ vs Kobe, and perhaps Bron but hes not even close to reaching the end of his career so lets not touch on that.

Hawkeye15
08-24-2012, 02:43 PM
I wouldnt even know how to define that as an individual trait. How can 1 player put his team in contention? He likely gives you a longer championship window because of the fact that hes in the NBA longer and still playing at a high level, how big of an advantage he is would depend on his abilities for sure but lets just say these guys are still All-NBA caliber players.

Could this hold true for anyone? Would you rather take inferior player if he gives you many more years of service? I guess that prolly depends on the gap

That is exactly it for me. If player B in your scenario was an elite player in those first 9 years, but not quite as good as player A, but was also playing at a high level until near age 40, he would probably be the right answer. But if player B was vastly inferior during those first 9 seasons, I will take player A, because you are simply better from age 21-29 in most cases.

xxplayerxx23
08-24-2012, 02:44 PM
I thought Melo was player B :cry: But give me Player B.

#Shumpert Up
08-24-2012, 02:46 PM
I didnt want to ruin the surprise but I would rather people focus on the issue.

The example given was a real life example but it could hold true in a variety of comparisons. Like Reed vs Ewing, MJ vs Kobe, and perhaps Bron but hes not even close to reaching the end of his career so lets not touch on that.

yeah i was just going to say its eerily sounding of those two. only thing is we dont know when lebron will run out of steam that is yet to be known

as a knick fan i love ewing and im too young to know much about willis reed, but he's the one with the ring so i guess i'd choose him

JordansBulls
08-24-2012, 03:00 PM
Say we have two players, one is clearly superior to the other, the other stayed in the NBA longer and maintained his effectiveness throughout.



Lets say from ages 21-29, Player A is clearly better. From 30-33 its a dead heat. But from ages 34-36 Player B is clearly better. From that point Player A has retired and Player B plays till hes 40 at a high level.

Which would you rather have?

Player A handily especially if he is clearly better from 21-29.

Chronz
08-24-2012, 03:10 PM
Player A handily especially if he is clearly better from 21-29.

Can you think of a situation where you have taken the player who lasted longer?

seikou8
08-24-2012, 03:11 PM
player b for sure

KnicksorBust
08-24-2012, 03:23 PM
Say we have two players, one is clearly superior to the other, the other stayed in the NBA longer and maintained his effectiveness throughout.



Lets say from ages 21-29, Player A is clearly better. From 30-33 its a dead heat. But from ages 34-36 Player B is clearly better. From that point Player A has retired and Player B plays till hes 40 at a high level.

Which would you rather have?

I actually really like the idea of this thread but it's so hard to answer this without knowing more about the players (their position, their style of play, the numbers they produce) and how to define some of these subjective terms you used.

"clearly better" = ?
"high level" = ?

Does that mean they scored more? Passed more? Better defender? Better everything? High Level meaning all-nba or close to their skill peak skill set? Maybe it'd be better if you could actually give real players?

JordansBulls
08-24-2012, 03:29 PM
Can you think of a situation where you have taken the player who lasted longer?

To me it is like choosing David Robinson or Patrick Ewing. Robinson clearly was the superior player but his prime was not that long, whereas Ewing seems he had greater longevity.

Another could be Penny Hardaway or Mark Price.
CP3 or Isiah Thomas.

Chronz
08-24-2012, 03:37 PM
I actually really like the idea of this thread but it's so hard to answer this without knowing more about the players (their position, their style of play, the numbers they produce) and how to define some of these subjective terms you used.

"clearly better" = ?
"high level" = ?

Does that mean they scored more? Passed more? Better defender? Better everything? High Level meaning all-nba or close to their skill peak skill set? Maybe it'd be better if you could actually give real players?

Well statistically you could probably argue the 2 were relatively equal (Regular season wise) about 2 years sooner at 27, I just subjectively separated them because of their playoff performances (and some accolades) in the coming years.


But basically from 21-29, 1 player had the superior PER/WS combination every year, on average it was a 23.9 vs 20.4 / .226WS vs .190.
The playoff production mirrors those differentials.

High level meaning still in their primes not too far off from peak, the point where they are still All-NBA or All-Stars.

whitemamba33
08-24-2012, 03:41 PM
It takes a GREAT team to win an NBA championship; you need more than just one guy in his prime. Without longevity, the chances of putting together all the pieces necessary to win are reduced.

Kobe Bryan'ts longevity has enabled him to be a big part of several great teams. He was good early on when he go teamed up with Shaq, he was STILL good when they landed Pau Gasol, and he's STILL good now that Dwight and Nash have come on board. There are a lot of former stars who would be finding themselves on the bench at this point in their careers. Instead, the Lakers have had a star sg for YEARS, and have the leadership and experience that comes with it. This is even more important with players on teams that aren't often contenders, because it's harder to recruit and put good teams together.

Chronz
08-24-2012, 03:43 PM
It takes a GREAT team to win an NBA championship; you need more than just one guy in his prime. Without longevity, the chances of putting together all the pieces necessary to win are reduced.

Kobe Bryan'ts longevity has enabled him to be a big part of several great teams. He was good early on when he go teamed up with Shaq, he was STILL good when they landed Pau Gasol, and he's STILL good now that Dwight and Nash have come on board. Because of this, the Lakers have had a star sg for YEARS, and have the leadership and experience that coms with it. This is even more important with players on teams that aren't often contenders, because it's harder to recruit and put good teams together.


What if Tmac had been greater than Kobe till age 29, with Kobe holding the edge slightly till 31 and THEN Tmac dropping out altogether and Kobe playing till hes 40?

whitemamba33
08-24-2012, 03:51 PM
What if Tmac had been greater than Kobe till age 29, with Kobe holding the edge slightly till 31 and THEN Tmac dropping out altogether and Kobe playing till hes 40?

Too many holes in that scenaio. Greater by how much? A couple points a game? 1-2 percent fg percentage? How well does Kobe play from 31-40?

Likely, in your scenario, i'm still taking Kobe - assuming that you aren't giving TMAC Wilt-like numbers during his prime. If I'm a team owner, I know that I can win a championship with a player of Kobe's caliber, even if there are a couple of players in the league that put up slightly better stats. As an owner, I also know that I'm not going to win anything unless the stars align and I can surround Kobe with enough talent, so playing all-star basketball into his mid 30's is beneficial. For me, it's about maximizing the size of the window. There were a lot of great 90's teams, but Chicago shut the door on a lot of them.

Regardless, with your Tmac example, I have about 8 years to win a championship. If he's playing anywere but a major market, that's not a lot of time.

Sactown
08-24-2012, 08:24 PM
Obviously MJ vs Kobe

Raidaz4Life
08-24-2012, 08:26 PM
If Player B is still putting his team in championship contention, even his mid to late 30s, then I have to go with Player B. He gives you a longer championship window than Player A.

Exactly this

assuming both players are difference makers towards a championship team.

LakersIn5
08-25-2012, 04:36 AM
great examples are

isiah thomas and john stockton
iverson and pierce

JasonJohnHorn
08-25-2012, 06:28 AM
This is a great question. I think the way you have it set up, I would favour the better player with the shorter career, but you have them in a dead heat in their early thirties.

You take Clyde Drexler and Kobe Bryant as an example. Drexler, in his prime, was a better all around player than Kobe. I know that there are people who would disagree, but he had a higher rebounding average, higher assist average, more steals and a better FG%. When he was in Portland, the way he was playing, he was the second best shooting guard of all time. But then he was traded to Houston and became a complimentary player to Hakeem, but even at the age of 30 his numbers started to drop (though that was likely as much to do with Portland's depth as Drexler aging). If you look at Kobe's numbers after the age of 30 and compare it to Drexler, though Drexler was still perhaps the better rebounder, passer and defender, Bryant is head and shoulders above Drexler in scoring.

So who is better. Drexler? Or Bryant? I'd say in their respective primes Drexler was the better player, but looking throughout their entire career, Kobe is the better player. And Kobe's ring count plays a factor in this as well.

You could make a case for Kareem over Wilt for the same reasons. Wilt, in his prime, put up much better numbers than Kareem, but Kareem had a much longer career, and like Kobe has more rings than Wilt.

So longevity does play a roll. When you are splitting hairs between two HOFers like Kobe and Drexler, or Kareem and Wilt, the player with longevity will likely win favour.

And of course there are players who, once they hit 30, were never the same; T-Mac, Carter, Starbury, Francis. If these guys kept posting the numbers the were posting from 25-29 years of age, each would be a lock for the HOF.

BobbyHillSwag
08-25-2012, 09:31 AM
great examples are

isiah thomas and john stockton
iverson and pierce

my thoughts exactly and im taking player A everytime.

IndyRealist
08-25-2012, 10:33 AM
my thoughts exactly and im taking player A everytime.

I'd take player B every time. Isaiah for a decade or Stockton for two decades? Stockton every time.

3's set u free
08-25-2012, 11:11 AM
I'd take player B every time. Isaiah for a decade or Stockton for two decades? Stockton every time.

Exactly. And really it is so subjective. When you have two players of that caliber you can't define clearly better just by stats. Throw the stats out and see who made their teams better. I would argue by that standard these two players were pretty equal. So their primes were somewhat equal and one player had way more longevity. Seems like a no brainer.

Teeboy1487
08-25-2012, 11:16 AM
I'd take player B every time. Isaiah for a decade or Stockton for two decades? Stockton every time.

This.

JasonJohnHorn
08-25-2012, 12:21 PM
I'd take player B every time. Isaiah for a decade or Stockton for two decades? Stockton every time.

I don't think Thomas vs. Stockton is quite what the OP is saying. The OP is saying that one player in their 20's is CLEARLY better than the other player, and that they are equal for their early-mid thirties, but one retires at that point and the other continues for another three season. With Thomas vs. Stockton, Stockton was better than Thomas when you compare their primes, and Thomas retired young and Stockton was still playing at the level he was playing at from 25-35. So Stockton is the obvious choice here.

A comparison that might work could be Moses Malone and David Robinson, where Robinson was clearly the better player in his prime, or at least more complete player, but Moses played until he was 41 or 42, where Robinson's numbers started to drastically go down once Duncan arrived on the seen. So who do you take, Robinson? Or Moses?

lookie8
08-25-2012, 12:23 PM
Say we have two players, one is clearly superior to the other, the other stayed in the NBA longer and maintained his effectiveness throughout.



Lets say from ages 21-29, Player A is clearly better. From 30-33 its a dead heat. But from ages 34-36 Player B is clearly better. From that point Player A has retired and Player B plays till hes 40 at a high level.

Which would you rather have?

The one that would loan me money.

Chronz
08-25-2012, 12:54 PM
I'd take player B every time. Isaiah for a decade or Stockton for two decades? Stockton every time.
Solid example




Exactly. And really it is so subjective. When you have two players of that caliber you can't define clearly better just by stats
Who did? BTW the less stats you use, the less objective your argument becomes IMO. I would hope you consider accolades tho

Throw the stats out and see who made their teams better.
How would you begin to account for variables, like teammate support without the use of stats? That sounds like a tall task to leave up to your subjective individual assessment on a libraries worth of information.


I would argue by that standard these two players were pretty equal.
Which years, care to provide a good breakdown of when and why for us?


So their primes were somewhat equal and one player had way more longevity. Seems like a no brainer.

Sounds like a solid rule, just out of curiosity, would you rather have Zo or Robert Parish?

beliges
08-25-2012, 01:07 PM
Ill take the players like Kareem, Malone and Kobe. Not only the most dominant during their prime, but did it at an elite level for about two entire decades.

Sometimes you just get the best of both worlds.

kblo247
08-25-2012, 02:33 PM
I guess you can look at it like this.

Hill/Penny/T-Mac vs Kobe
Admiral vs Kareem
JO vs Karl Malone

Guys like Kobe, Karl, and Kareem are so rare because you rarely have to worry about fixing one position for almost 20 years so you get to pencil that spot in and fix other needs and problems.

I mean Grant Hill was great, Penny was amazing to watch, and Tracy was something else. The same can be said for JO in Indy or David Robinson, but they fell off and ended up traded, benched, discarded, or the team ended up hoping to luck out like SA did in the draft

JordansBulls
08-25-2012, 02:49 PM
I guess you can look at it like this.

Hill/Penny/T-Mac vs Kobe
Admiral vs Kareem
JO vs Karl Malone

Guys like Kobe, Karl, and Kareem are so rare because you rarely have to worry about fixing one position for almost 20 years so you get to pencil that spot in and fix other needs and problems.

I mean Grant Hill was great, Penny was amazing to watch, and Tracy was something else. The same can be said for JO in Indy or David Robinson, but they fell off and ended up traded, benched, discarded, or the team ended up hoping to luck out like SA did in the draft

No way it is like that. Kareem had a greater peak than Robinson and so did Malone over JO.

Maybe argue Barkley vs Malone or Shaq vs Kareem. That is more like it.