3676Re: Dampier (was Article from _The Economist_)
- Apr 6, 2004<kpelton08@h...> wrote:
> To quote JohnH, ".. TheTwo
> Fluke Rule says that players who make sudden jumps in productivity
> after 27 almost always come back to earth the next season,..."
> Well, Dampier hasn't come back to earth, he's been even better.
> years of well above-average play in the middle seems an awful lotto
> explain away to a fluke to me...Hakeem Olajuwon "busted out" in 1993, at age 29-30. He continued
his megastar play for a few years.
Magic Johnson's most dominant seasons came after the age of 27.
Larry Bird had a similar career trajectory, peaking at age 28-31.
Shaq's most monster year was at age 27-28.
Duncan's approaching year 28 and still improving.
Maybe the data that shows "most players" have peaked before age 28
are biased by the effect that marginal players are peaking at age
23 -- and out of the league by age 27.
Meanwhile, average players may peak at age 25, done by 29. (Numbers
off the top of my head)
Presumably, smaller players rely more on quickness; when that begins
to fail, their usefulness is curtailed.
But big men seem to do better by merely surviving, and adding skills
to their repertoire. Beefing up doesn't seem to slow them as much.
> Dampier is extremely unlikely toInteresting prediction, but given that quite a few big men make such
> repeat this year's All-Star level performance in the future, ...
a career jump at just about this age, I'd be reluctant to back such
I'll predict that he comes back next year at a level closer to this
year than to last year. I'd make that prediction with anyone,
barring extenuating circumstances: known injury, etc.
>I recall McIlvaine's selling point was his shotblocking rate.
> Comparing him to a player in McIlvaine who signed his contract a
> year after averaging 3.8 points and 4.0 rebounds per game (with
> 48.6% true shooting percentage and 10.7 boards per 48 minutes) is
> incredibly unfair and insulting to Dampier.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>