Maturity/age... 27ish appears to be the sweet spot

[sturt]

4 hours ago, AHF said:

Just for reference, the minutes weighted age of the Hawks this season was 24.9.

In 2021-22, it was 26.1.

In 2020-21, it was 25.4.

In 2019-20, it was 24.1.

 

So last year was a big step back as far as the weighted age of the minutes being played by our roster.  (Assuming you buy into that age 27-30 range being a typical player prime which I do.)

By way of comparison, the minutes weighted age for a few other teams was:

Milwaukee 29.8

Boston 27.4

Philly 28.2

Miami 27.8

Denver 26.6

 

That is a pretty significant difference between our 24.9 and these minutes weighted average ages.

Absolutely.

And you and I and surely everyone else understands... when your rotation goes from having on that second unit (a) a crusty old vet Gallo and (b) a contemporary of the rest of the young core... to... (a) reliance on the 2021 FRP who was just two years removed from HS, and (b) the 2022 FRP who was not only just one year removed from HS, but was the youngest FRP drafted, iirc...

You're going to see regression in that way.

Which affirms... we really were going to be in a good position if it'd been plausible to keep both Gallo and Huerter. Gaining DJ helped make up for that loss, but not entirely... and our young-uns, as good as their talents are, and as much as they both progressed, weren't developed enough to be dependable assets.

[Gray Mule]

Being raised on a farm, I understand about the green grass and why theirs has a deeper green tint.  It's usually due to the fact they spread more BS on their gress than we do.

[AHF]

2 hours ago, sturt said:

27 year-old JC almost certainly will be better than 25 year-old JC.

That is overstating things.  You can say that in general players are better at age 27 than age 25 but the variation among players is definitely wide enough that you can't say someone will be better at 27 than 25 to an "almost certain" degree of certainty.  Using JC as an example, all of his career highs are from his age 22 or age 23 season so a case can be made that he hasn't been better at age 24 and 25 than he was at age 22 and 23.  Actually, I just went and looked at his advanced metrics on basketball reference and he has two career bests in his age 24 and 25 seasons:

Turnover % (his lowest turnover rate was his age 24 season) and Defensive Win Shares (this year was better than his age 20 previous high)

PER, TS%, ORB%, DRB%, TRB%, AST%, STL%, BLK%, OWS, WS, WS/48, OBPM, DBPM, BPM, VORP career highs are all his age 20-23 seasons. 

Will JC be better at age 27 than age 25?  Well, 25 was his career worst season so he better be!  But will he be better than he was during his age 20-23 seasons?  That remains to be seen.  I would contend that if he was a free agent today he wouldn't get as rich a contract as he has now because he has not impressed as much these last two seasons in most areas of his game.  (Not going into the impact of CC on him because it has already been covered to the nth degree elsewhere.)

[AHF]

2 hours ago, sturt said:

Absolutely.

And you and I and surely everyone else understands... when your rotation goes from having on that second unit (a) a crusty old vet Gallo and (b) a contemporary of the rest of the young core... to... (a) reliance on the 2021 FRP who was just two years removed from HS, and (b) the 2022 FRP who was not only just one year removed from HS, but was the youngest FRP drafted, iirc...

You're going to see regression in that way.

Which affirms... we really were going to be in a good position if it'd been plausible to keep both Gallo and Huerter. Gaining DJ helped make up for that loss, but not entirely... and our young-uns, as good as their talents are, and as much as they both progressed, weren't developed enough to be dependable assets.

I'd love to see an alternate reality version of last season where we could hold the team together and see how it played out.  (I'm assuming Gallo isn't lost for the year in that alternate reality.)  You are totally right to call out JJ and AJ as guys who had more minutes than you'd want to see from players with that little experience and at that young an age if you have legit aspirations of being a contender.  That said, I was encouraged by what I saw from both of them.  So in my mind, there is no doubt that maturation of our young players will be very impactful for us if they continue to progress like most of us think they will. 

[sturt]

7 hours ago, AHF said:

That is overstating things.  You can say that in general players are better at age 27 than age 25 but the variation among players is definitely wide enough that you can't say someone will be better at 27 than 25 to an "almost certain" degree of certainty.  Using JC as an example, all of his career highs are from his age 22 or age 23 season so a case can be made that he hasn't been better at age 24 and 25 than he was at age 22 and 23.  Actually, I just went and looked at his advanced metrics on basketball reference and he has two career bests in his age 24 and 25 seasons:

Turnover % (his lowest turnover rate was his age 24 season) and Defensive Win Shares (this year was better than his age 20 previous high)

PER, TS%, ORB%, DRB%, TRB%, AST%, STL%, BLK%, OWS, WS, WS/48, OBPM, DBPM, BPM, VORP career highs are all his age 20-23 seasons. 

Will JC be better at age 27 than age 25?  Well, 25 was his career worst season so he better be!  But will he be better than he was during his age 20-23 seasons?  That remains to be seen.  I would contend that if he was a free agent today he wouldn't get as rich a contract as he has now because he has not impressed as much these last two seasons in most areas of his game.  (Not going into the impact of CC on him because it has already been covered to the nth degree elsewhere.)

I think that's a fair response. "Almost certain" is, upon reflection, an overstatement.

Better said, when a player earns a significant contract following his rookie scale, that is indicative that a lot of basketball people have looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion, "This is a player worthy of significant long-term investment."

Further, when a player continues to be seen as a highly marketable commodity (... and actually, in our case with JC, the clearly most  marketable if national writers are to be believed) ... this also contributes to reason to believe a lot of people employed because of their basketball evaluation history are persuaded "this is a player we should pursue"--and that, regardless of what numbers we happen to piece together as you have here.

The conclusion being, it is difficult to argue that a significant number of people in the industry believe John Collins' best seasons are in front of him.

 

To the wider point I was attempting... first, yeah, again, "almost certain" was/is a bad choice of words... there are, after all, many players who clearly begin to plateau ahead of 27, and moreover, many who clearly begin to regress. It's an average. It suggests what we should think of a player if we don't actually know anything more about him but age.

If I may have a mulligan?

As we see a player earn a significant first vet contract (after rookie scale), we ordinarily should anticipate that he was signed to that significant contract because people paid to be good evaluators (not that they all are, but they're surely better than most of us novices) concluded "we see exceptional reason to invest in this guy long-term." In other words, yes, the conventional wisdom should be that this guy is a prime candidate to end up a higher quality player at 27 than at 23.

I think those words are fair, no?

[AHF]

8 hours ago, sturt said:

I think that's a fair response. "Almost certain" is, upon reflection, an overstatement.

Better said, when a player earns a significant contract following his rookie scale, that is indicative that a lot of basketball people have looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion, "This is a player worthy of significant long-term investment."

I actually think the evidence goes the other direction on this one.  JC got out and shopped himself to 30 teams and no one offered anything comparable to his offer from Atlanta.  So I'd say TS decided to abide by the offer the Hawks made despite the fact that JC couldn't get that on the market out of loyalty to the player.  

Granted maybe I am parsing this too finely.  I would consider JC's interest on the free market to still be "worth of a significant long-term investment" but one that was judged as not worthy of offering as much or more than the Hawks.

Quote

Further, when a player continues to be seen as a highly marketable commodity (... and actually, in our case with JC, the clearly most  marketable if national writers are to be believed) ... this also contributes to reason to believe a lot of people employed because of their basketball evaluation history are persuaded "this is a player we should pursue"--and that, regardless of what numbers we happen to piece together as you have here.

The conclusion being, it is difficult to argue that a significant number of people in the industry believe John Collins' best seasons are in front of him.

I can't follow you all the way on this one either.  If national writers are to be believed, JC is not the most marketable Hawk he is the Hawk that the team has shopped the most.  And the team hasn't gotten back a worthy offer.  So that would suggest that a significant number of people in the industry don't believe John Collins is worth what the Hawks want in return for him.  That would also suggest to me that they don't think his future seasons are going to be notably better than what they have seen but that is me reading into it.  I'd be fine just saying that other teams haven't been interested in giving up value for him regardless of whether teams think he will get better or not.

Quote

 

To the wider point I was attempting... first, yeah, again, "almost certain" was/is a bad choice of words... there are, after all, many players who clearly begin to plateau ahead of 27, and moreover, many who clearly begin to regress. It's an average. It suggests what we should think of a player if we don't actually know anything more about him but age.

If I may have a mulligan?

As we see a player earn a significant first vet contract (after rookie scale), we ordinarily should anticipate that he was signed to that significant contract because people paid to be good evaluators (not that they all are, but they're surely better than most of us novices) concluded "we see exceptional reason to invest in this guy long-term." In other words, yes, the conventional wisdom should be that this guy is a prime candidate to end up a higher quality player at 27 than at 23.

I think those words are fair, no?

I think it is definitely fair to assume the Hawks believed he would be better at 27 than he was at 23 when they signed him to that deal.  Do they still believe he will be notably better?  The fact that they have reportedly shopped him as much as we've seen (and I'm not just talking about the number of stupid clickbait articles but the combination of more legit writers and our insiders being perfectly aligned in the Hawks trying to deal him more often than any other player on the roster) would be an indicator to me that they don't think he will be dramatically better.

He definitely needs to reverse some trends to get to a place where he is significantly more productive at 27 than he was in his early 20's.

[sturt]

  

48 minutes ago, AHF said:

JC got out and shopped himself to 30 teams and no one offered anything comparable to his offer from Atlanta.

Wait. What? You're going to have to provide evidence on that one. And it strains credulity how you would be able to come up with anything apart from the speculations of a blogger filling his monthly writing quota.

Let's even say you've read that somewhere... how would it even be the kind of thing that's know-able??? You just (legitimately) chided me for an overstatement... and in this case, think about it... you've alleged that "no one" ... "offered anything comparable."

That's just not something teams or players divulge in a normal context unless/until it would come to some kind of Al Horford-like two-team death match.

And even if we had that kind of information readily at-hand that Portland, Detroit, Miami and the Knicks (I'm just picking teams out of the air) had all made offers... who is the judge you would offer up that we should trust to assess what constituted "comparable?"

And add to that even... that's just talking about straight-up free agent offers from teams that had cap space... we could never  know what sign-and-trade discussions were initiated among those that did not have cap space, and were prepared to pay the man.

So. This amounts to a big "huh"...?!?

 

It's completely likely that JC received one or more "comparable" offers, but nothing that exceeded what ATL had offered, and he's more of a bird-in-the-hand kind-of-guy.

It's also completely unlikely, imo, that GMs are ever all that charitable in making whatever offer they make to a player. They do their internal assessment... which includes not only the player himself, but how the player fits with the blueprint for the team... and they make an offer. And even in a world where we could know is true what you have alleged to be true... what GM in his right mind tells a player, "Okay since your best offer was something less, I'm going to offer you less as well." How does that somehow help the GM in the long run to take that tack... and like other players wouldn't notice and have future repercussions in others' negotiations and desire to remain in ATL.

Busy morning... haven't even read the rest of your post here, but I'd read that much and felt like taking a moment to respond.

 

 

[thecampster]

On 5/23/2023 at 7:57 AM, JayBirdHawk said:

I think this has been established/considered Prime/Peak years.

Be careful, I made the statement on this board years ago to wait longer on big men to mature and got called a racist (still trying to figure that one out).  25 folks.  Really shouldn't judge any player until they hit 25. Stuff's just different after 25.

[thecampster]

18 hours ago, Gray Mule said:

Being raised on a farm, I understand about the green grass and why theirs has a deeper green tint.  It's usually due to the fact they spread more BS on their gress than we do.

Post of the century (no ageism intended )

[JayBirdHawk]

16 minutes ago, thecampster said:

Be careful, I made the statement on this board years ago to wait longer on big men to mature and got called a racist (still trying to figure that one out).  25 folks.  Really shouldn't judge any player until they hit 25. Stuff's just different after 25.

  That's unfortunate.

[AHF]

34 minutes ago, sturt said:

  

Wait. What? You're going to have to provide evidence on that one. And it strains credulity how you would be able to come up with anything apart from the speculations of a blogger filling his monthly writing quota.

Let's even say you've read that somewhere... how would it even be the kind of thing that's know-able??? You just (legitimately) chided me for an overstatement... and in this case, think about it... you've alleged that "no one" ... "offered anything comparable."

That's just not something teams or players divulge in a normal context unless/until it would come to some kind of Al Horford-like two-team death match.

And even if we had that kind of information readily at-hand that Portland, Detroit, Miami and the Knicks (I'm just picking teams out of the air) had all made offers... who is the judge you would offer up that we should trust to assess what constituted "comparable?"

And add to that even... that's just talking about straight-up free agent offers from teams that had cap space... we could never  know what sign-and-trade discussions were initiated among those that did not have cap space, and were prepared to pay the man.

So. This amounts to a big "huh"...?!?

 

It's completely likely that JC received one or more "comparable" offers, but nothing that exceeded what ATL had offered, and he's more of a bird-in-the-hand kind-of-guy.

It's also completely unlikely, imo, that GMs are ever all that charitable in making whatever offer they make to a player. They do their internal assessment... which includes not only the player himself, but how the player fits with the blueprint for the team... and they make an offer. And even in a world where we could know is true what you have alleged to be true... what GM in his right mind tells a player, "Okay since your best offer was something less, I'm going to offer you less as well." How does that somehow help the GM in the long run to take that tack... and like other players wouldn't notice and have future repercussions in others' negotiations and desire to remain in ATL.

Busy morning... haven't even read the rest of your post here, but I'd read that much and felt like taking a moment to respond.

 

 

I think it is extremely unlikely a team would offer what Atlanta had already offered knowing that Atlanta would just match that.  But I concede that I can't produce any evidence that a team didn't offer a comparable package.

What I can say with extreme confidence is that no team offered even $.01 more than Atlanta did.  So I think JC went around and got a lot of "no bids" from teams because they weren't interested in exceeding what Atlanta offered and/or believed that Atlanta would just match.  It is clear no one was willing to do a "Bogi" where they exceeded Atlanta's offer and called their bluff.

As far as why a team wouldn't want to let a player shop themselves around after getting a generous contract offer, it is extremely common in negotiations to say "this is our last, best offer and it is off the table if you leave this room."  In the context of the NBA, that offer is made to say that if you want to go shop yourself around the league we will just match whatever offer you get so you can either take our offer or the best you can get from another team.  That is, in fact, what I think Atlanta should have done.  This isn't an uncommon tactic to rely on other teams to set the market price, although I'll grant that it is perhaps more common for a team not even to make an offer but to simply let the player shop themselves and match whatever they are offered at the end of the day.  This is exactly what the Hawks did with Jeff Teague who signed a sheet with the Bucks.  

IMO, it is really stupid to offer something that is likely over what a RFA would get in the market and allow them to shop themselves around.  That is the worst of both worlds where you risk overpaying with your initial offer and then remove the downside to that player potentially driving the price up even higher.  At that point, you should just let them shop themselves to start and match ala Teague.

[thecampster]

21 hours ago, AHF said:

I think it is extremely unlikely a team would offer what Atlanta had already offered knowing that Atlanta would just match that.  But I concede that I can't produce any evidence that a team didn't offer a comparable package.

What I can say with extreme confidence is that no team offered even $.01 more than Atlanta did.  So I think JC went around and got a lot of "no bids" from teams because they weren't interested in exceeding what Atlanta offered and/or believed that Atlanta would just match.  It is clear no one was willing to do a "Bogi" where they exceeded Atlanta's offer and called their bluff.

As far as why a team wouldn't want to let a player shop themselves around after getting a generous contract offer, it is extremely common in negotiations to say "this is our last, best offer and it is off the table if you leave this room."  In the context of the NBA, that offer is made to say that if you want to go shop yourself around the league we will just match whatever offer you get so you can either take our offer or the best you can get from another team.  That is, in fact, what I think Atlanta should have done.  This isn't an uncommon tactic to rely on other teams to set the market price, although I'll grant that it is perhaps more common for a team not even to make an offer but to simply let the player shop themselves and match whatever they are offered at the end of the day.  This is exactly what the Hawks did with Jeff Teague who signed a sheet with the Bucks.  

IMO, it is really stupid to offer something that is likely over what a RFA would get in the market and allow them to shop themselves around.  That is the worst of both worlds where you risk overpaying with your initial offer and then remove the downside to that player potentially driving the price up even higher.  At that point, you should just let them shop themselves to start and match ala Teague.

I still marvel at the ludicrousness of adults arguing the fairness of a grown man getting paid "XX" million to play a kid's game.

But market value.....yahdee, yahdee.

But collusion....yahdee, yahdee.

But he could have walked if he found a better deal....yahdee, yahdee yah.

 

He's making more in 1 season than 99% of the population will make in their lifetime. I'm not going to cry crocodile tears for or against it.  You make $25 million "PER YEAR", you go try to earn that paycheck. Anyone trying to say he's lived up to $25 million a year is watching highlight videos.  If he can fetch back more in trade, you do it. If he can improve his play and live up to $25 million/per....you keep him.  But the 2nd half of the season, Jalen outplayed him at 1/7th the price.

That's it...that's the bottom line on John.  I think the finger still affects him. It may continue to affect him.  He's lost the ability to control the ball backing people down in the post. Jalen moves better on the slash, passes better on the move, can put the ball on the floor. John has to step up or Jalen is going to take his spot.

[NBASupes]

On 5/24/2023 at 8:16 AM, Final_quest said:

Again.  No one is saying 27 isn't the peak, it usually is.  

My actual point wasn't addressed at all.  Virtually none of the guys who actually contributed to the ECF run are statistically on an upward trajectory since that year, or they are off the team.  Therefore the premise of this thread does not apply to our situation. 

The cast of younger players who have joined the team/rotation since the ECF run need to show that they can play at a clip like that team did, remember the 27-11 stretch.  That achievement hasn't been matched since then, and Bey, AJ, Jalen, Dejounte, and Hunter need to show they can produce similar results with Trae.  So far they haven't come close.  2021 Bogi, JC, Capela, Huerter, Solomon Hill, and Gallinari is a different team/group as our current roster.  You can see with the average age two years ago being completely different than last year.  

Don't act like I'm not being reasonable.  That is the real straw man.  I'm actually addressing the heart of what you are saying.  I went player by player and showed you virtually NONE of the ECF cast is on an upward trajectory.  Then you play this card like I'm being tone deaf and won't listen to reason.  Not all players progress at a level to give you a title, it's that simple.  

A team of mediocre 27 year olds won't beat Jokic because he's the best.  The best players win titles not 27 year old players.  The NBA is always about the very top 30-35 players. 

Highlight factory Hawks was dominated by 20-23 year old LeBron for example. The Hawks had three top 35 players and Cleveland only had one but had the best player in the NBA 

Edited May 26, 2023 by NBASupes

[NBASupes]

22 hours ago, AHF said:

I think it is extremely unlikely a team would offer what Atlanta had already offered knowing that Atlanta would just match that.  But I concede that I can't produce any evidence that a team didn't offer a comparable package.

What I can say with extreme confidence is that no team offered even $.01 more than Atlanta did.  So I think JC went around and got a lot of "no bids" from teams because they weren't interested in exceeding what Atlanta offered and/or believed that Atlanta would just match.  It is clear no one was willing to do a "Bogi" where they exceeded Atlanta's offer and called their bluff.

As far as why a team wouldn't want to let a player shop themselves around after getting a generous contract offer, it is extremely common in negotiations to say "this is our last, best offer and it is off the table if you leave this room."  In the context of the NBA, that offer is made to say that if you want to go shop yourself around the league we will just match whatever offer you get so you can either take our offer or the best you can get from another team.  That is, in fact, what I think Atlanta should have done.  This isn't an uncommon tactic to rely on other teams to set the market price, although I'll grant that it is perhaps more common for a team not even to make an offer but to simply let the player shop themselves and match whatever they are offered at the end of the day.  This is exactly what the Hawks did with Jeff Teague who signed a sheet with the Bucks.  

IMO, it is really stupid to offer something that is likely over what a RFA would get in the market and allow them to shop themselves around.  That is the worst of both worlds where you risk overpaying with your initial offer and then remove the downside to that player potentially driving the price up even higher.  At that point, you should just let them shop themselves to start and match ala Teague.

The reason they didn't do this was internal pressure from Trae and Rayford Jr. 

[Final_quest]

1 hour ago, thecampster said:

Anyone trying to say he's lived up to $25 million a year is watching highlight videos. 

I'm not excited at all at the idea of keeping Collins, Capela, Bogi, and Hunter, then also giving contracts to Bey, Murray, and Okongwu.  You can't pay that cast around $140-160M and also pay Trae, rookie contracts, Mid-levels, and minimums.  We'd be one of the highest payrolls in the league.  

[AHF]

58 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

The reason they didn't do this was internal pressure from Trae and Rayford Jr. 

I don't understand this.  Can you expand on it?  I can understand people wanting to make sure that JC was resigned but (a) why would they care how it was done as long as it was done and (b) why would Atlanta's front office agree to overpay one player because another player was asking you to overpay them?  This goes doubly for Trae's dad.  The idea that he was overriding Travis Schlenk on this type of issue is laughable to me.

For example, if the Hawks told JC to go find  his own deal in RFA and promised Trae they would match any offer he got what is the problem from Trae's perspective?  They are guaranteed to keep him so....

[NBASupes]

8 minutes ago, AHF said:

I don't understand this.  Can you expand on it?  I can understand people wanting to make sure that JC was resigned but (a) why would they care how it was done as long as it was done and (b) why would Atlanta's front office agree to overpay one player because another player was asking you to overpay them?  This goes doubly for Trae's dad.  The idea that he was overriding Travis Schlenk on this type of issue is laughable to me.

For example, if the Hawks told JC to go find  his own deal in RFA and promised Trae they would match any offer he got what is the problem from Trae's perspective?  They are guaranteed to keep him so....

Trae demanded that we resign JC and pay. JC wasn't willing to resign unless he got what he felt he deserved if even NO ONE in the NBA thought he was worth that contract. TS wasn't willing to bulge but Tony was because he didn't want any distractions and they just went to the ECF as a young team. This was Tony's 2nd awful call. Horford and Dwight was #1. There was no market beyond what JC was first offer from Atlanta before the ext deadline. JC should thank Trae for everything but I truly believe Trae felt JC deserved the money but Trae now realizes why players should just be players and let the FO do them but then again, Murray wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Trae. That wasn't a TS call either. 

 

I am not excusing TS, he was the one that wanted Trae over Luka. Tony wanted Luka. But Tony been critical to two key items TS wasn't a supporter of.

 

I don't believe Murray was a blunder. I do believe JC contract and the Howard signing and lack of resigning Horford as MASSIVE blunders. 

Edited May 26, 2023 by NBASupes

[Jdawgflow]

15 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

I am not excusing TS, he was the one that wanted Trae over Luka. Tony wanted Luka. But Tony been critical to two key items TS wasn't a supporter of.. 

I thought I remember you saying before that Tony wanted Trae because it would sell more tickets?

[Gray Mule]

Poor kid!  Making only $25 million per year.

I've been retired 24 years and I doubt seriously that I've made $2 million in my entire life, including retirement.  So you can understand why I feel so bad about this poor boy not being paid more than he is.  It's so sad!

[sturt]

This happens, and maybe it should... larger overarching macro points are made, and then we start sifting through the more surgical micro, and we end up essentially on a tangent where the macro gets lost.

I'm bored with my own OP at this point, but allow me just to remind of that macro... then allow you good folks to continue to your heart's desire...

Conventionally speaking, players who have gained the confidence of... not just us novices in the grandstands, but people whose incomes depend on them being right and whose resumes have put them in a position to have those incomes in the first place... sufficiently enough to attain a fairly lucrative first vet contract for 4-5 years... it is a rational assumption that we should anticipate those players are expected to develop into better overall players (both in terms of quantitative and qualitative assessments) by the end of that contract (ostensibly 27-ish) than they were at the start (ostensibly 23-ish).

And I go a little further than that... I believe our FRP guys still on their rookie scale contracts are all  reasonable to suspect their trend lines point to being better at 27-ish as well.

Thus, while you always have to be looking for ways to improve your roster... no question... it is a well-supported position to suggest that this team should expect to improve its overall outcome next season just as a matter of internal development.