I'm tired of hearing about how old players are. One day 30 is too old and another it's 35. Hell, I have even read 29 is too old one time. The bottom line is there is no real exact age to look at. Sure, its safe to say that most hit a constant and significant decline at mid 30s and by their late 30s are close to done, if not already, but there's a possible 4-5 year range between those. Dream helped the rockets almost beat the Jazz in the conference finals at 34. He averaged 23 and 9 that year. Age of when Malone last made it to the finals with the jazz? 34. And he was still the go to guy at that point. Barkley put up 15 and 10 at age 36. Clyde, at 35, was good for 18 pts per game. Zo averaged almost 3 blocks a game at 35 and 2.5 at 36. Of course we all know what deke could do at almost 40. I understand these are some of the NBA greats, so they're suppose to "last longer", since they're perceived to have a better work ethic and preparation, but this translates to role players as well. They can work as hard, sometimes harder, than the all-stars. It's just not as evident since they don't start off averaging 25 and 15, so they'll reach pedestrian averages more quickly. Many here choose to jump on these guys and declare them washed up. Did they watch them play recently? Not likely. Check their stats further than their averages? Probably not. They just focused on their age. I think this is mainly due to two reasons. 1. Fans think vets leave because they're washed up, when in reality many are basically forced out. There's more talent across the NBA now. There's less need to keept he vets in the end of their careers, even if they have game left. Teams would rather shift their focus, money, roster spots, and starting spots to the young guys filled with potential. They'll give up on the vet who can give them 12 and 8 for two more years because they think a young guy can get them 25 and 12 in 3-4 years. This forces many vets to call it quits earlier. Sometimes retirement is better than being severely underutilized and/or disrespected. 2. In our own personal lives we're surrounded by people who are truly "washed up" by their mid thirties, sometimes earlier, and we apply this to the NBA as well. However, pro sports is a different culture, as most have had other pros looking out for their health and well being for years. They're more likely to look and feel 30 at 35 or 35 at 40, yet the average individual outside of the sports culture has made 30 the new 40, 40 the new 50. People cringe at the thought of turning 30. They nearly die of depression when turning 40. We can't evalute pro athletes by using ourselves, the general population, as the main evidence. Most of us have jobs that don't depend on being in shape or healthy and unfortunately we're overweight and sick in some way because of it. So stop focusing on the age of players only or too much, or there's a good chance they'll make you look foolish. Obviously there's always exceptions. Just like some of us in the general population make an effort not to age as quickly as our peers, there's players who don't make an effort and do age more quickly than their peers. Therefore, it's important to consider a player's own individual personality as well, but that's just another reason not to count them all out at a specific age.
No, age is the objective statement of the inevitable, undeniable decline of the physical body and when you're playing in pro sports, against other athletes in peak physical condition, it makes a gigantic difference. I mean, hey, those cool numbers, cute numbers even. But they were no longer the best players in the league at that point. It is irrational argument to say that there's no difference between a 35 year old Barkley and a 25 year old Barkley. Oh, you're just saying that he was still good? Yeah well, he wasn't top 5 good like Wade and LeBron are.
It's not the age, it's the number of games and the number of minutes, add in the number of playoff games as well. Kobe's 32, when MJ was 32 he was retiring and ready to come back and dominate 3 more years. Kobe is not going to have 3 more peak years because he's had many many more games and minutes than Jordan. I think it's the amount of stress a player's body can take, you jump and land so many times before the body can't handle it and the knee goes out. This also means that certain players last longer than others, Ray Allen and Reggie Miller will last longer than a guy that constantly goes to the basket and gets hacked.
Hey, when you quit arguing with yourself, let me know. Way to bring up statements and comparisons i never made or even implied. I never said players can keep going and going forever....obviously every player, regardless of how hard they work out, will eventually break down too much to compete. I definitely never said a 35 yr old barkley is the same as barkley at 25. Wade and lebron? Finally a thread that's not about the big 3 and you find a way to still sneak them in there. This has ZERO to do with either. It did seem like a rant because of my first sentence, but i think it's important to point this out to the younger and newer fans. If you've followed basketball for a while you've seen enough examples of older vets still making significant contributions. Younger fans havent experienced this and assume the thought of a 34 yr old making signinificant contributions is unrealistic and even impossible. New fans may focus too much on numbers, so if these vets arent putting up 25 and 10 they're "washed up". They dont realize that, if they can come in and put up 10 and 6 in 15-20 mins, it's still a good contribution given the minutes played. i definitely agree...like i mentioned it's important to look at each player individually...injuries and wear and tear can play a larger part in determining how long a player will last, but i was hoping that would be understood. Mainly, i was targeting those fans who just focus on age, literally. this thread is definitely not a way of urging the team to sign all the weatherspoons, stricklands, and mark jacksons of the NBA. I have nothing against going after good young talent. I just think it's ignorant to simply focus on age to evaluate a player and that's a popular trend in this forum.
I had the same problem trying to explain that to the judge. I mean she looked 18, isn't that what really matters?
uh, what? Reading comprehension, is it not offered in public schools anymore? Or maybe its the yearly eye exams that are missing?
Brett Favre 41 years old. Just had his best season in his already hall of fame career. Tmac 29 years old. Can barely walk.
I do notice a lot of media and fans place too strong of an emphasis on age when determining how well a player is going to play. I find this happens in football probably more so than basketball. I've learned that arbitrarily weighing age that strongly is hit-or-miss, so I've started to judge players based solely on their performance. There are too many variables involved and individual exceptions to say that player X is going to be less effective just because he has hit age Y.
You forgot to add that at age 40, MJ was still a top 20 player in the NBa. He dropped 51 points at age 40. Which is just ridiculous.
