Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: player minutes chart

Expand Messages
  • Mike Goodman
    ... the ... players ... concentration ... Pretty much so. New players come into the league, young players get better, in general. ... Thus, ... SO, ... new
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 4, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., harlanzo@y... wrote:
      > I am just curious about theory of minutes and dilution. I assume
      the
      > theory is that if a player's minutes dropped from the season before
      > this is an indication that better players have come in to take his
      > missing minutes. Thus the player who loses his minutes (from the
      > season before) occupyies the lower niche which creates a chain
      > reaction of other lower niches eventually dumping lower rung
      players
      > out of the league. THe end result of this is a higher
      concentration
      > of talent. Is this the correct assumption?

      Pretty much so. New players come into the league, young players
      get better, in general.

      > If it is, it seems pretty sound. The one flaw in the reasoning is
      > that it is assumes players retain their abilities from the seasons
      > before. However, player ability does not remain static. I think
      > most people view a players career as a line that moves up hits its
      > peak and then goes down. In that scenario most players are not
      > always, from season to season, the same as the season before.
      Thus,
      > a change in minutes for players could be a result of new younger
      > talent blowing into the league while another groups has aged. This
      > is not to say that the two groups both at their peaks are equal.
      SO,
      > a drop in minutes could be in some cases a result of an influx of
      new
      > not so great players while the current previously great group
      became
      > old. If the old players lose their minutes and talent from the
      year
      > before is the league's overall talent level really higher than the
      > year before. Maybe one could argue that it is on some level but
      I'm
      > not sure. Anyway, I'll stop because I think I might be babbling at
      > this point.

      I am so glad to know I am not the only one who may be babbling.
      We could assume, in a large sampling of players, there are always
      about as many guys in decline as there are in ascension. And as many
      good and average guys are entering the league as are retiring. If
      the concentration factors I have calculated are not equal to 1, then
      there is either a net influx, or a net decline in talent
      concentration.
      In theory.


      >
      >
    • Mike Goodman
      ... talent ... Other way around. More competition = fewer minutes. Again, the minutes listed are for individuals, so if you got fewer minutes, someone else
      Message 2 of 14 , Jun 4, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@t...> wrote:
        > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Mike Goodman" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
        >
        > Mike --
        >
        > A few things.
        >
        > 1. Are you saying that if players average fewer minutes, then
        talent
        > is more dilute? This is weird and I'd have to think about it.
        >
        Other way around. More competition = fewer minutes. Again, the
        minutes listed are for individuals, so if you got fewer minutes,
        someone else was better.

        > 2. One factor in minutes going down may be that more games are
        played
        > now than in the 50's. I don't imagine this to be a big factor.
        >
        Dadgummit! I completely forgot this. It is definitely a factor,
        and I will have to go back and redo everything before 1967. No big
        changes from one year to the next, but the cumulative index will
        change for sure.
        Fewer games in the earlier seasons will mean an even larger
        difference in talent concentration. (More games should yield more
        minutes.) This is going to make the NBA of 1953 look even more like
        a minor league affair.

        > 3. I've never understood the arguments that people made about
        Jordan
        > having it easy because talent was more dilute in his period than in
        > the '60's, for instance. On a statistical first order basis, it is
        > easier to win a title in a 12 team league than a 30 team league.
        >
        Just between you and me and other "analysts", I think a title in
        1960 is about equivalent to a conference finals appearance today;
        the Celtics only had to win 2 rounds, to be called champs.
        Another way to look at it is: the Bulls beat out 28 other teams 3
        times straight, which is 84 team-seasons. The Celts beat out 7-8
        other teams 9 years straight, some 67 team-seasons.
        And, the Bulls did it twice.

        > 4. I like to think about talent dilution only in terms of the Bell
        > Curve argument Bill James made. He said that pro players come from
        > the right side of the bell curve. The NBA is made up of the top
        > 0.0001% of society's basketball players. If you double the size of
        > the league, it is the top 0.0002%. This is true if you assume that
        > scouting is perfect, which it ain't, and all of the top players
        > actually want to play, which they don't. So there is some fluff
        > -- you actually have half of the top 0.0002% in the first case and
        > are missing half of that true talent (for example). What is
        > interesting to me about your numbers is that the league (in terms
        > of teams) grows roughly 3 times, but your factor grows only 2.85
        > times. Does this mean that the league is doing a better job of
        > getting the top players into the league? Given the money in it and
        > the globalization, that would make some sense.... But I'm really
        not
        > sure whether I can make the statement (which gets back to point #1).
        >
        > Dean Oliver
        > Journal of Basketball Studies

        Money surely draws the best players more effectively today than in
        1952, when factory jobs paid better.
        Connie Hawkins may or may not have originated this
        statement: "The older we get, the better we were."
        I know Oscar and Cousy (not to mention Wilt) have been vociferous
        about how much better the talent used to be.
      • Dean Oliver
        ... before ... his ... always ... many ... then ... So a concentration factor 1 means a net influx of talent? I think that is what this all means. (Please
        Message 3 of 14 , Jun 4, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Mike Goodman" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
          > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., harlanzo@y... wrote:
          > > I am just curious about theory of minutes and dilution. I assume
          > the
          > > theory is that if a player's minutes dropped from the season
          before
          > > this is an indication that better players have come in to take
          his
          > > missing minutes. Thus the player who loses his minutes (from the
          > > season before) occupyies the lower niche which creates a chain
          > > reaction of other lower niches eventually dumping lower rung
          > players
          > > out of the league. THe end result of this is a higher
          > concentration
          > > of talent. Is this the correct assumption?
          >
          ...
          > We could assume, in a large sampling of players, there are
          always
          > about as many guys in decline as there are in ascension. And as
          many
          > good and average guys are entering the league as are retiring. If
          > the concentration factors I have calculated are not equal to 1,
          then
          > there is either a net influx, or a net decline in talent
          > concentration.
          > In theory.

          So a concentration factor > 1 means a net influx of talent? I think
          that is what this all means. (Please correct me.) Actually the
          concentration factor is a measure of net influx of talent, but not
          dilution. Right? Getting a sense of dilution would mean comparing
          the concentration factor increase to the increase in the number of
          teams or the number of players. So the 2.85 factor over the last 50
          years (when the league has gone from 10 teams to 29) means that
          talent isn't all that diluted (2.85/2.9 ~1). It should have gone up
          by a factor of 2.9 to keep up with the number of teams. On the other
          hand, the number of players you are calculating this for went from 59
          to 271, an increase of 4.5. So maybe it's diluted a lot (2.85/4.5).
          I'm not sure which is the more relevant comparison.

          I hope I'm right in my interpretations because, with this
          understanding, I really do think you have something there. And I
          wasn't sure there was a way to measure dilution. So simple yet so
          apparently reasonable.

          What players do you calculate the values for? Do you think we need
          to correct for the number of games played, too (which change from
          year to year, esp. early on)?

          Dean Oliver
          Journal of Basketball Studies
        • Mike Goodman
          ... think ... Assuming reduced minutes-per-player is the result of increased competition, that seems to be the consensus. Getting a sense of dilution would
          Message 4 of 14 , Jun 4, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@t...> wrote:
            > So a concentration factor > 1 means a net influx of talent? I
            think
            > that is what this all means. (Please correct me.) Actually the
            > concentration factor is a measure of net influx of talent, but not
            > dilution. Right?

            Assuming reduced minutes-per-player is the result of increased
            competition, that seems to be the consensus.

            Getting a sense of dilution would mean comparing
            > the concentration factor increase to the increase in the number of
            > teams or the number of players. So the 2.85 factor over the last
            50
            > years (when the league has gone from 10 teams to 29) means that
            > talent isn't all that diluted (2.85/2.9 ~1). It should have gone
            up
            > by a factor of 2.9 to keep up with the number of teams.

            I don't think so. Increasing the number of teams (expansion) has
            only reduced the talent concentration during that year, and it is
            immediately made up in the next year or two. What I am reading is
            that a player from 1965, transported to 1985, would only get half as
            many minutes. This is, of course, an average; a Wilt or an Oscar
            would still get beaucoup minutes, but a Bob Ferry might get only 1/4
            the minutes.

            On the other
            > hand, the number of players you are calculating this for went from
            59
            > to 271, an increase of 4.5. So maybe it's diluted a lot
            (2.85/4.5).
            > I'm not sure which is the more relevant comparison.

            I think, by comparing individuals' year-to-year minutes, we are
            immune to such factors as # of teams or # of players. The proof is
            in the pudding.
            >
            > I hope I'm right in my interpretations because, with this
            > understanding, I really do think you have something there. And I
            > wasn't sure there was a way to measure dilution. So simple yet so
            > apparently reasonable.

            Simple enough, when you have Excel. Yet I have overlooked its
            significance.

            > What players do you calculate the values for? Do you think we need
            > to correct for the number of games played, too (which change from
            > year to year, esp. early on)?
            >
            Fewer games early on means I get scalped some more, for beating up
            on the old-timers. I counted everyone who played for one team in 2
            consecutive years. Not counting players traded midseason should not
            add up to anything in the long run, but I can't prove this. Partly,
            I was concerned about guys getting 88 games, but mostly I didn't have
            a ready list of added totals.
          • Mike Goodman
            I am responding to my own earlier post. I am editing some of this chart to factor in the changing schedule, from 66 games in 1952, to 82 games by 1967. In
            Message 5 of 14 , Jun 5, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              I am responding to my own earlier post. I am editing some of this
              chart to factor in the changing schedule, from 66 games in 1952, to
              82 games by 1967.
              In this version, ABA seasons are not included, though the effects
              on the NBA are measured.
              I also completed the analysis from 1996-2000, previously missing.

              --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Mike Goodman" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
              > A chart showing players who played in 2 consecutive seasons,
              > listing the year, number of players qualifying, minutes from
              previous
              > season, minutes from year indicated, ratio of minutes
              > (previous/current), and cumulative factor. The cumulative factor
              is
              > the given year's "concentration factor" multiplied by the previous
              > cumulative factor.
              > Players who played for more than one team during either year are
              > not eligible in this list. That's just the way I did it.
              >
              > Here is the complete listing, as it now stands:
              >
              > concentration
              > year players prev. min. factor cumul. expansion/contraction
              > 1953 59 1777 1928 .977 .977 9 teams to 10
              > 1954 56 1981 1928 1.057 1.033 10 teams to 9
              > 1955 51 2080 1910 1.089 1.125 9 teams to 8
              > 1956 58 1944 1817 1.070 1.20
              > 1957 54 1783 1682 1.060 1.28
              > 1958 54 1944 1817 1.047 1.34
              > 1959 66 1781 1799 .990 1.32
              > 1960 68 1797 1725 1.086 1.44
              > 1961 66 1797 1825 1.037 1.49
              > 1962 65 1914 2036 .952 1.42 8 teams to 9
              > 1963 75 2091 1908 1.096 1.55
              > 1964 75 1943 1827 1.064 1.65
              > 1965 68 1836 1763 1.041 1.72
              > 1966 68 1892 1846 1.025 1.76
              > 1967 66 1975 2122 .942 1.66 9 teams to 10
              > 1968 93 1682 2045 .849 1.41 10 to 23 (11 ABA teams)
              > 1969 155 1955 1982 .962 1.36 23 to 25 (11 ABA)
              > 1970 172 1949 1893 1.045 1.42
              > 1971 185 1971 2070 .953 1.35 25 to 28 (11 ABA)
              > 1972 208 2001 1867 1.069 1.44
              > 1973 205 2069 1974 1.063 1.54 28 to 27 (10 ABA)
              > 1974 220 1888 1834 1.007 1.55
              > 1975 214 1897 1827 1.016 1.57 27 to 28 (10 ABA)
              > 1976 216 1864 1719 1.022 1.61 28 to 25 (7 ABA)
              > 1977 189 1890 1645 1.142 1.84 25 to 22
              > 1978 164 1892 1859 1.017 1.87
              > 1979 171 1906 1860 1.024 1.91
              > 1980 170 1894 1800 1.052 2.00
              > 1981 169 1883 1888 .997 2.01 22 teams to 23
              > 1982 196 1825 1708 1.069 2.14
              > 1983 198 1731 1655 1.046 2.24
              > 1984 204 1780 1768 1.007 2.26
              > 1985 227 1767 1667 1.060 2.39
              > 1986 223 1761 1690 1.042 2.49
              > 1987 220 1724 1659 1.039 2.59
              > 1988 211 1687 1665 1.013 2.63
              > 1989 224 1532 1553 .986 2.59 23 teams to 25
              > 1990 223 1751 1778 .985 2.55 25 teams to 27
              > 1991 247 1750 1675 1.045 2.66
              > 1992 253 1710 1674 1.022 2.72
              > 1993 271 1736 1611 1.078 2.93
              > 1994 263 1666 1577 1.056 3.10
              > 1995 271 1664 1576 1.056 3.27
              > 1996 271 1584 1600 .990 3.24 27 teams to 29
              1997 266 1615 1596 1.012 3.28
              1998 265 1658 1597 1.038 3.40
              1999* 277 1637 1572 1.041 3.54
              2000 298 1640 1554 1.056 3.74

              * 1999 minutes adjusted for short season
            • tamada@oxy.edu
              ... this ... Fascinating stuff, this really is utilizing the minutes played statistic for all it s worth. A couple of minor suggestions: 1. It looks like
              Message 6 of 14 , Jun 8, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Mike Goodman" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
                > I am responding to my own earlier post. I am editing some of
                this
                > chart to factor in the changing schedule, from 66 games in 1952, to
                > 82 games by 1967.

                Fascinating stuff, this really is utilizing the minutes played
                statistic for all it's worth. A couple of minor suggestions:

                1. It looks like you're literally looking at total minutes played;
                I'd suggest minutes per game instead. For two reasons: it
                automatically corrects for the "games per season" problem that
                you've been wrestling with. And it will help correct for injuries,
                and comebacks from injuries, which can cause a player's minutes
                to seemingly plummet or skyrocket. Injuries will also affect minutes
                per game, but less so than total minutes.

                2. The issue of players' minutes changing due to their individual
                improvement or aging is a potentially important but complex one.
                You mentioned that it sort of evens out, as young players improve
                and old players decline, but that assumes a sort of long run
                equilibrium. I can imagine that there have been times when the
                NBA was in the middle of a period of influx of new talent (probably
                most all the time) or conversely a period of decay in which old
                players declined but failed to get replaced by an equal amount of new
                talent (probably much rarer, except maybe when an unusual "baby boom"
                of talent, such as 1984, starts aging).


                Are the concentration factors based on players' total minutes?
                That might be the best way to do things, but it might cause the
                concentration factors to be overly influenced by the star players
                who get the most minutes. E.g. if 2 players both doubled their
                minutes from 400 to 800, but one superstar diminished from 3,200 to
                2,800, the grand total is unchanged and the concentration factor would
                be 1.0. But I wonder if we should instead give each of the three
                players equal weight, with individual concentration factors of 2.0,
                2.0, and .875, for an average of 1.625. (This is assuming I've got the
                correct formula for calculating concentration factors.)

                That example shows a danger of my suggestion, as there will be a lot
                of marginal players with tiny minutes whose individual concentration
                factors can be huge or tiny, and which might unduly influence the
                overall index.

                Maybe there's an intermediate way... logarithms, medians instead of
                means or totals, etc.

                I won't be reading email for almost a month, so I regrettably won't
                be able to participate in this discussion for much longer, until July.

                It occurs to me that my minutes-per-game suggestion might be
                problematic when players change their number of games played, in
                addition to their number of minutes per game ... a lot here to think
                about.


                --MKT
              • Mike Goodman
                ... to ... minutes ... One problem with using minutes-per-game is that, while mathematically compensating for the player who was injured, in fact that player s
                Message 7 of 14 , Jun 8, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In APBR_analysis@y..., tamada@o... wrote:
                  > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Mike Goodman" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
                  > > I am responding to my own earlier post. I am editing some of
                  > this
                  > > chart to factor in the changing schedule, from 66 games in 1952,
                  to
                  > > 82 games by 1967.
                  >
                  > Fascinating stuff, this really is utilizing the minutes played
                  > statistic for all it's worth. A couple of minor suggestions:
                  >
                  > 1. It looks like you're literally looking at total minutes played;
                  > I'd suggest minutes per game instead. For two reasons: it
                  > automatically corrects for the "games per season" problem that
                  > you've been wrestling with. And it will help correct for injuries,
                  > and comebacks from injuries, which can cause a player's minutes
                  > to seemingly plummet or skyrocket. Injuries will also affect
                  minutes
                  > per game, but less so than total minutes.

                  One problem with using minutes-per-game is that, while
                  mathematically compensating for the player who was injured, in fact
                  that player's minutes are picked up by other players; and so there
                  would be a skewed total for his team, and for the league.

                  > 2. The issue of players' minutes changing due to their individual
                  > improvement or aging is a potentially important but complex one.
                  > You mentioned that it sort of evens out, as young players improve
                  > and old players decline, but that assumes a sort of long run
                  > equilibrium. I can imagine that there have been times when the
                  > NBA was in the middle of a period of influx of new talent (probably
                  > most all the time) or conversely a period of decay in which old
                  > players declined but failed to get replaced by an equal amount of
                  new
                  > talent (probably much rarer, except maybe when an unusual "baby
                  boom"
                  > of talent, such as 1984, starts aging).
                  >
                  Completely valid points. But wouldn't a mass retirement or mass
                  influx be evened out over a few years at most? If there were serious
                  ups and downs not attributable to league expansion, I would wonder
                  about this, yet as the sample size grows in later years, the trend is
                  invariably toward talent concentration.

                  > Are the concentration factors based on players' total minutes?
                  > That might be the best way to do things, but it might cause the
                  > concentration factors to be overly influenced by the star players
                  > who get the most minutes. E.g. if 2 players both doubled their
                  > minutes from 400 to 800, but one superstar diminished from 3,200 to
                  > 2,800, the grand total is unchanged and the concentration factor
                  would
                  > be 1.0. But I wonder if we should instead give each of the three
                  > players equal weight, with individual concentration factors of 2.0,
                  > 2.0, and .875, for an average of 1.625. (This is assuming I've got
                  the
                  > correct formula for calculating concentration factors.)
                  >
                  > That example shows a danger of my suggestion, as there will be a
                  lot
                  > of marginal players with tiny minutes whose individual
                  concentration
                  > factors can be huge or tiny, and which might unduly influence the
                  > overall index.
                  >
                  > Maybe there's an intermediate way... logarithms, medians instead of
                  > means or totals, etc.
                  >
                  > I won't be reading email for almost a month, so I regrettably won't
                  > be able to participate in this discussion for much longer, until
                  July.
                  >
                  > It occurs to me that my minutes-per-game suggestion might be
                  > problematic when players change their number of games played, in
                  > addition to their number of minutes per game ... a lot here to
                  think
                  > about.
                  >
                  >
                  > --MKT

                  Again we have reached more agreement than I am comfortable with!
                  I wish we could find some holes in the logic, or at least some seams.
                  Even casually asking my acquaintances seems to produce the same
                  response, intuitively or analytically: players must be getting
                  better.
                • harlanzo@yahoo.com
                  ... I agree with your conclusion on player improvement. I was trying to think of a way of independently verifying that point. The one way that it struck me
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jun 8, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Mike Goodman" <msg_53@h...> wrote:

                    > Even casually asking my acquaintances seems to produce the same
                    > response, intuitively or analytically: players must be getting
                    > better.

                    I agree with your conclusion on player improvement. I was trying to
                    think of a way of independently verifying that point. The one way
                    that it struck me to do this is to check players' best years and see
                    whether their peaks coincide with the generally believed development
                    of players (ie rising production from 21-27/28 and then gradual
                    decline). Indeed, it did seem that an inordinate number of players
                    hit their statistical peaks in 61-62 well before we might believe
                    they would. I have not looked at this thoery in depth but its just a
                    thought.
                  • Mike Goodman
                    ... to ... see ... development ... a ... Another suggestion (offline) has been that players have longer careers these days. Whereas 13 years was about the
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jun 9, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., harlanzo@y... wrote:
                      >
                      > I agree with your conclusion on player improvement. I was trying
                      to
                      > think of a way of independently verifying that point. The one way
                      > that it struck me to do this is to check players' best years and
                      see
                      > whether their peaks coincide with the generally believed
                      development
                      > of players (ie rising production from 21-27/28 and then gradual
                      > decline). Indeed, it did seem that an inordinate number of players
                      > hit their statistical peaks in 61-62 well before we might believe
                      > they would. I have not looked at this thoery in depth but its just
                      a
                      > thought.

                      Another suggestion (offline) has been that players have longer
                      careers these days. Whereas 13 years was about the limit for players
                      entering before 1965, there are now quite a few players who go for 15-
                      20 years. In general, their last few seasons would consist of
                      minutes diminishing below that of their rookie seasons.
                      Which brings me to another point: I don't think it matters where
                      in your career you peak (early, middle, late), in terms of league-
                      wide averages. Rather, it matters how many minutes you played as a
                      rookie, and how many you play in your last season, and that is all.
                      While a good many players hang on to the bitter end, perhaps
                      winding up their career with a 100-minute season, there are very few
                      who get 100 minutes as a rookie, and build up to major minutes
                      later. Most good, long-career players are good as rookies.
                      So, regardless of the intervening years, only one's first and last
                      seasons really add up to anything in the league totals. If you get
                      2000 minutes as a rookie, you may peak at 3000 or 2500, or whatever;
                      if you play 10 years and end up with a 500 minute season, you lost
                      1500 minutes over 10 years. When you are looking at large numbers of
                      players, the curve smooths out everyone's peaks and valleys, and it
                      looks as though every year it is tougher to get minutes; but at least
                      part of this measurement is bogus.
                      Now we come to another sticking-point; we could figure everyone's
                      rookie minutes, final-season minutes, and career length, to get an
                      average annual minutes-lost number. But this would not distinguish
                      between an aging factor and a competition factor.
                      So these numbers may mean nothing. Or they may mean something.
                      Anyone?
                    • Mike Goodman
                      Responding to one of my own posts, again. I went ahead and tabulated the careers of some 1500 players, using seasons spent with a single team. I have broken
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jun 22, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Responding to one of my own posts, again.
                        I went ahead and tabulated the careers of some 1500 players, using
                        seasons spent with a single team. I have broken them down by career
                        length, from single-season careers to a 17+ year group.
                        The 2nd and 3rd columns are the minutes played as rookie, and in
                        final season.

                        career avg. minutes
                        length season annual decline
                        ----- ----------- ----- --------------
                        yrs. # first last net min. pct.
                        1 326 (500) (500)
                        2 156 685 561 -123 123 .180
                        3 129 873 626 -247 124 .142
                        4 93 916 688 -229 76 .083
                        5 76 1032 678 -354 88 .086
                        6 65 1150 784 -367 73 .064
                        7 86 1368 660 -709 118 .086
                        8 78 1415 734 -681 97 .069
                        9 96 1266 953 -313 39 .031
                        10 106 1448 912 -537 60 .041
                        11 92 1393 983 -410 41 .029
                        12 70 1534 1020 -513 47 .030
                        13 57 1779 1101 -678 57 .032
                        14 42 1734 1030 -704 54 .031
                        15 24 1436 1053 -383 27 .019
                        16 19 1881 1037 -844 56 .030
                        17+ 16 1997 480 -1516 89 .044
                        __________________________________________
                        7.7 1531 1240 805 -435 65 .052


                        This thing has sat on my desktop long enough; I am not ashamed to
                        say I don't know what to make of it.
                        One thing is clear: "weak" players (those with brief careers) have
                        a steeper decline, both in minutes and pct. of minutes, than do
                        stronger (longer) players. Is it possible to produce a "natural
                        decline" factor, as distinguished from a "talent concentration"
                        factor, by comparing the decline rates of stronger and weaker players?
                        Something about guys who go past 16 years and hanging on to the
                        bitter end? I don't know how much these 16 players can skew the
                        overall group, but it does illustrate how a bias can result when
                        talented young players come in at 2000 minutes and leave at 500.

                        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Mike Goodman" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
                        I don't think it matters where
                        > in your career you peak (early, middle, late), in terms of league-
                        > wide averages. Rather, it matters how many minutes you played as a
                        > rookie, and how many you play in your last season, and that is all.
                        > While a good many players hang on to the bitter end, perhaps
                        > winding up their career with a 100-minute season, there are very
                        few
                        > who get 100 minutes as a rookie, and build up to major minutes
                        > later. Most good, long-career players are good as rookies.
                        > So, regardless of the intervening years, only one's first and
                        last
                        > seasons really add up to anything in the league totals. If you get
                        > 2000 minutes as a rookie, you may peak at 3000 or 2500, or
                        whatever;
                        > if you play 10 years and end up with a 500 minute season, you lost
                        > 1500 minutes over 10 years. When you are looking at large numbers
                        of
                        > players, the curve smooths out everyone's peaks and valleys, and it
                        > looks as though every year it is tougher to get minutes; but at
                        least
                        > part of this measurement is bogus.
                        > Now we come to another sticking-point; we could figure
                        everyone's
                        > rookie minutes, final-season minutes, and career length, to get an
                        > average annual minutes-lost number. But this would not distinguish
                        > between an aging factor and a competition factor.
                        > So these numbers may mean nothing. Or they may mean something.
                        > Anyone?
                      • Dean Oliver
                        ... using ... Mike -- I think all this work with minutes is very interesting. Not precisely sure what to make of it either, but it _seems_ relevant and
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jun 22, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Mike Goodman" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
                          > Responding to one of my own posts, again.
                          > I went ahead and tabulated the careers of some 1500 players,
                          using
                          > seasons spent with a single team. I have broken them down by career
                          > length, from single-season careers to a 17+ year group.
                          > The 2nd and 3rd columns are the minutes played as rookie, and in
                          > final season.
                          >
                          > career avg. minutes
                          > length season annual decline
                          > ----- ----------- ----- --------------
                          > yrs. # first last net min. pct.
                          > 1 326 (500) (500)
                          > 2 156 685 561 -123 123 .180
                          > 3 129 873 626 -247 124 .142
                          > 4 93 916 688 -229 76 .083
                          > 5 76 1032 678 -354 88 .086
                          > 6 65 1150 784 -367 73 .064
                          > 7 86 1368 660 -709 118 .086
                          > 8 78 1415 734 -681 97 .069
                          > 9 96 1266 953 -313 39 .031
                          > 10 106 1448 912 -537 60 .041
                          > 11 92 1393 983 -410 41 .029
                          > 12 70 1534 1020 -513 47 .030
                          > 13 57 1779 1101 -678 57 .032
                          > 14 42 1734 1030 -704 54 .031
                          > 15 24 1436 1053 -383 27 .019
                          > 16 19 1881 1037 -844 56 .030
                          > 17+ 16 1997 480 -1516 89 .044
                          > __________________________________________
                          > 7.7 1531 1240 805 -435 65 .052

                          Mike --

                          I think all this work with minutes is very interesting. Not precisely
                          sure what to make of it either, but it _seems_ relevant and
                          informative. (Maybe for doing something like James' career projection
                          stuff...)

                          For instance, it's interesting that players with longer careers never
                          fall to the level of 2 year players -- in terms of minutes. That
                          probably means that they are still better than the 2 year players even
                          after 16 years in the game.

                          Another way to look at the data would be to calculate the minutes for
                          players in their peak year and what year that typically was.
                          Calculate a decline rate in minutes per year from the year of peak.
                          I'm guessing that the peak minute year flatterns out at about 5 years,
                          based on the typical assumption that players' careers peak at age
                          27-28.

                          Dean Oliver
                          Journal of Basketball Studies
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.