Uh-Oh Stat Geeks Who Swear By Joe...

[dlpin]

All hate for Hollinger aside, where is he wrong?

Where is the shooting guard that didn't significantly decline after reaching 30?

I am an outsider so I have no real dog in this fight, but here's the bottom line:

- Will this JJ contract in any way hurt the acquisition of young talent to pair up with one of the youngest, if not the youngest, frontcourts in the league? It the hawks will still be picking up pieces, using the mle, and doing trades that net young players to play alongside Al Horford and Josh Smith, it won't be a problem.

-If, however, they switch the mentality to one of "win now," bring in just a few old players to try to reach the conference finals and so on, then it will be a terrible addition. Because that will mean that the hawks will spend Horford's and Smith's prime rebuilding.

[exodus]

All hate for Hollinger aside, where is he wrong?

Where is the shooting guard that didn't significantly decline after reaching 30?

I am an outsider so I have no real dog in this fight, but here's the bottom line:

- Will this JJ contract in any way hurt the acquisition of young talent to pair up with one of the youngest, if not the youngest, frontcourts in the league? It the hawks will still be picking up pieces, using the mle, and doing trades that net young players to play alongside Al Horford and Josh Smith, it won't be a problem.

-If, however, they switch the mentality to one of "win now," bring in just a few old players to try to reach the conference finals and so on, then it will be a terrible addition. Because that will mean that the hawks will spend Horford's and Smith's prime rebuilding.

The flaw in Hollingers argument is that it doesn't take into account injuries or a change in teams. Carters production was consistently high until this year when he changed teams. Finleys biggest decline in production came when he went to the Spurs. rose's production fell off after he went to Toronto. Stackhouse got hurt when he was with the Wizards, then he got traded to Dallas to play a lesser role. Houston had a career ending injury. any players production will go down if they get hurt and can't play. I don't need Hollinger to tell me that.

It is very simple minded to say "these shooting guards fell off so JJ will probably fall off too". The same could be said for point guards but look at Jason Kidd and Steve Nash.

[dlpin]

The flaw in Hollingers argument is that it doesn't take into account injuries or a change in teams. Carters production was consistently high until this year when he changed teams. Finleys biggest decline in production came when he went to the Spurs. rose's production fell off after he went to Toronto. Stackhouse got hurt when he was with the Wizards, then he got traded to Dallas to play a lesser role. Houston had a career ending injury. any players production will go down if they get hurt and can't play. I don't need Hollinger to tell me that.

It is very simple minded to say "these shooting guards fell off so JJ will probably fall off too". The same could be said for point guards but look at Jason Kidd and Steve Nash.

First, there is no need to restrict oneself to even that sample. I can't think of a single shooting guard that wasn't significantly worse at 33-34 when compared to 29.

Point guards are different than SGs, and it is not uncommon for PGs to play well into their 30s.

But SGs face a serious decline, and it is not just a coincidence. You can find several centers, point guards and even forwards who were just as good at 33 as they were at 29. But you won't find SGs.

Now, that doesn't mean that JJ WILL decline. But statistics is not about stating things with certainty. It is about probabilities. And the probability that a SG will face a significant decline from 29 to 32-33 is overwhelming.

Just as an example, in the history of the NBA, players over 32 years old averaged 21.3 points a game while playing at least 60 games in a season 71 times.

The only SGs among those 71 times are Jordan, West, Iverson, Sam Jones and Mitch Richmond. The only ones to do that at 33 were Jordan, West, and Sam Jones. In other words, to remain as productive as he is, Joe Johnson would have to have a career like some of the all time greats.

Second, all those players declined before they changed teams.

At 29, Carter had 24.2 ppg and 5.8 rpg with a PER of 21.6 and 10.5 win shares

At 32, Carter had 20.8 ppg and 5.1 rpg with a PER of 19.3 and 7.5 win shares.

Both with the Nets

At 29 Finley had 19.3 ppg anf 5.8 rpg, with a PER of 17.6 and 6.7 win shares

at 31, still with Dallas, he had 15.7 and 4.1., with a PER of 14.3 and 5.5 win shares

And with Stackhouse, you can compare him at 30 and 33, since both times he was with Dallas:

from 14.9 ppg to 10.7ppg, from a PER of 15.9 to 13.3, from win shares or 3.5 to 2.3...

and so on.

[exodus]

First, there is no need to restrict oneself to even that sample. I can't think of a single shooting guard that wasn't significantly worse at 33-34 when compared to 29.

Point guards are different than SGs, and it is not uncommon for PGs to play well into their 30s.

But SGs face a serious decline, and it is not just a coincidence. You can find several centers, point guards and even forwards who were just as good at 33 as they were at 29. But you won't find SGs.

Now, that doesn't mean that JJ WILL decline. But statistics is not about stating things with certainty. It is about probabilities. And the probability that a SG will face a significant decline from 29 to 32-33 is overwhelming.

Just as an example, in the history of the NBA, players over 32 years old averaged 21.3 points a game while playing at least 60 games in a season 71 times.

The only SGs among those 71 times are Jordan, West, Iverson, Sam Jones and Mitch Richmond. The only ones to do that at 33 were Jordan, West, and Sam Jones. In other words, to remain as productive as he is, Joe Johnson would have to have a career like some of the all time greats.

Second, all those players declined before they changed teams.

At 29, Carter had 24.2 ppg and 5.8 rpg with a PER of 21.6 and 10.5 win shares

At 32, Carter had 20.8 ppg and 5.1 rpg with a PER of 19.3 and 7.5 win shares.

Both with the Nets

At 29 Finley had 19.3 ppg anf 5.8 rpg, with a PER of 17.6 and 6.7 win shares

at 31, still with Dallas, he had 15.7 and 4.1., with a PER of 14.3 and 5.5 win shares

And with Stackhouse, you can compare him at 30 and 33, since both times he was with Dallas:

from 14.9 ppg to 10.7ppg, from a PER of 15.9 to 13.3, from win shares or 3.5 to 2.3...

and so on.

This analysis ignores the departure of HOF pgs Nash and Kidd. At 29 Carter was playing with Kidd. At 32 he wasn't. At 29 Finley was playing with Nash. At 31 he wasn't.

[exodus]

I'd also like to know how Robinson. Mashburn and Rice (all forwards) show up as comps but Paul Pierce doesn't.

[KB21]

Of the players listed as comparisons in this thread, the one player on the list whose game is the most similar to Joe Johnson's game is Steve Smith. Both Joe and Steve are/were primarily jump shooters. Neither player gets/got to the free throw line at a high rate. Steve Smith shot a career average of 3.8 FTA/G while Joe is sitting at 3.2 FTA/G at this point. The other players on the list, with maybe the exception of Allan Houston and Glenn Rice whose stats I have not yet looked up, had completely different games. Even though Allan and Glenn were jump shooters, my impression of them without looking at the stats is that they were basically jump shooters that did little else.

Joe and Steve have/had unusual size for a shooting guard. Both players are 6'8" or better, and both weighed around the 240 lbs area. Also, both players were very versatile on the court as they both have/had great court vision and tremendous passing skills for their position. Both were also tremendous shooters that like/liked to back their man down into the post on occasion.

The biggest difference between the two is that Steve Smith had multiple knee injuries at a young age that took a toll on him late in his career. Joe has been blessed to not have those kinds of injuries. With that said, depending upon which stat you like to look at, Steve Smith had the best season of his career at the age of 30 and was still a very productive player who was producing 6+ wins at the age of 32. At the age of 30, Steve produced 10.4 wins according to the win shares stat, his highest -single season total in his career. The next highest was in 1997-98 at 10.2. At 32, Steve produced the highest TS% and eFG% of his career. His decline from age 32 to age 33 was sharp, but how much of that decline can be attributed to the arthritic condition in his knees.

I've argued against this contract because I feel you should only play the elite players in the league a max deal, and Joe isn't an elite player. While the odds may be against him though, Joe's game is the type of game that shouldn't decline with age. His game is not based around athleticism, which is what goes when you age. That shooting stroke usually does not go away with age.

[Guest]

First, there is no need to restrict oneself to even that sample. I can't think of a single shooting guard that wasn't significantly worse at 33-34 when compared to 29.

Point guards are different than SGs, and it is not uncommon for PGs to play well into their 30s.

But SGs face a serious decline, and it is not just a coincidence. You can find several centers, point guards and even forwards who were just as good at 33 as they were at 29. But you won't find SGs.

If you are just looking for one counter example, Reggie Miller. But for some reason I don't believe you are looking for just one counter example.

Its hard to project Joe, and anyone who takes Hollinger's projections seriously needs to just stop. I have said it too many times, he's a dope and if you throw enough projections around you are bound to get some right.

[dlpin]

This analysis ignores the departure of HOF pgs Nash and Kidd. At 29 Carter was playing with Kidd. At 32 he wasn't. At 29 Finley was playing with Nash. At 31 he wasn't.

Compare the years without him, then. Finley at 31 and 32. Better yet, find the SG who didn't decline significantly from 29 to 32 or 33.

If you are just looking for one counter example, Reggie Miller. But for some reason I don't believe you are looking for just one counter example.

Its hard to project Joe, and anyone who takes Hollinger's projections seriously needs to just stop. I have said it too many times, he's a dope and if you throw enough projections around you are bound to get some right.

First, they are not JUST Hollinger's projections. Every stats geek I know has said the same.

And while Reggie Miller stayed productive till very old, he had clearly declined by 33.

[niremetal]

Compare the years without him, then. Finley at 31 and 32. Better yet, find the SG who didn't decline significantly from 29 to 32 or 33.

First, they are not JUST Hollinger's projections. Every stats geek I know has said the same.

And while Reggie Miller stayed productive till very old, he had clearly declined by 33.

I don't think anyone doubts that JJ will not be as good in 2015 (or even 2013) as he is now. Unless he's the second coming of Nash, he will decline at least somewhat. The question is whether he'll decline enough that his contract will become an albatross. That is where the argument lies. I'm with the group that says "look at the way JJ plays rather than just the position that he plays; since his game does not rely on explosiveness or athleticism, his skill set should mean that he's still a very good player 4-5 years from now."

JJ's game is more similar to Ray Allen and Reggie Miller's than it is to Jerry Stackhouse or Vince Carter's. The former aged more gracefully than the latter. And JJ's height and ridiculous upper body strength give him a crutch as he grows older that none of those guys had. As Rashard, Ray, and many others prove, the mere fact that you're overpaid doesn't mean that you're a liability as long as you continue to be productive.

[exodus]

Compare the years without him, then. Finley at 31 and 32. Better yet, find the SG who didn't decline significantly from 29 to 32 or 33.

First, they are not JUST Hollinger's projections. Every stats geek I know has said the same.

And while Reggie Miller stayed productive till very old, he had clearly declined by 33.

Ray Allen had his two best scoring years after he turned 30. However he didn't have any debillating injuries so i guess that is why Hollinger didn't mention him.

JJ's game isn't based on speed, quickness or jumping ability. It is based on size, skill and strength none of which should decline significantly during this contract. But the stats don't show what kind of game a player has. They don't show injuries or changes in teams/roles. That is why i am dismissing them. There is too much information that they don't take into account.

[jerrywest]

JJ will almost certainly move to the SF position in 2-4 years. He could even play against some tweener power forwards.