Looking at his scoring numbers, if he averages 20 ppg and 80 games per season, he will be second all time in scoring at the end of his contract, and still in the middle of his prime. If we re-sign him, he will easily go down as the teams scoring leader in franchise history. Not sure why, but that kinda shocked me. He will also be right behind Drexler in the number 2 spot in rebounds if he averages 8 per game in 80 games over the rest of his contract
I'd hardly say it's a done deal. He'd need to average 20ppg and play 80 games for 6.5 seasons to catch Clyde. So, that assumes he's 100% healthy for the next 6.5 years, he continues to produce at a very high level until he's almost 34 years old, and he doesn't get traded. Sure, it's possible, but there are a lot of potential obstacles that could crop up in the next 6.5 years. BNM
On the other hand, he's averaged nearly 21 ppg the past two years on basically the slowest paced team in the league. It's not that hard to imagine him bumping his average up to 24 ppg over the coming years, giving him a little latitude with injuries.
Closer to a season and a half. He only played in 55 of 66 games last season. The three years before that, he averaged about 18 ppg. I'm not saying he doesn't have a shot, but a lot can happen in 6.5 years. He may indeed average 23 or 24 ppg for the next three years, but at some point, once he passes 30 years old, his performance will start to decline. BNM
It's easier to imagine his points going down but his rebounds up, as a normal, non-McMillan coach decentralizes the offense and gives him a more conventional PF role. Also, his injuries may increase when all future coaches require him to play with passion.
When he played like a C a few years ago (post All-Star break) he was putting up close to 26 PPG and was easily the best low-post scorer in the game. Where would he be today if he wasn't so fixated on that mid-range jumper?
I can outdo him. If I averaged only 15 ppg for 10 years as a Blazer, I'd be one of the best ones in history, too. Therefore, I have already beaten him.
Steve Nash won his 1st MVP when he was 31 years old and 2nd at 32. Dirk won a championship as the team MVP and Finals MVP when he was 33 in 2011. I disagree with your statement.
Note, I aid Aldridge's performance would start to decline once he passes 30. That doesn't mean that he will suck, just that his numbers will gradually start to decline as he ages. Yes, but Dirk's performance at 33 was less than his peak at 27. His three best seasons were at the ages of 27, 28 and 26. He was still a damn good player at 33, but he also had a better supporting cast at 33 than he did at 27. Nash is an extremely rare exception - a player whose performance peaked after 30, but even in his case, he did start to decline after 32. Plus, he's not a big man. So, I don't think this one exception is all that relevant to Aldridge's eventual decline. See if you can find me some examples of big men, who were all-stars in there mid to late 20s, whose performance peaked after the age of 30. Like I said, Dirk peaked at 27/28. Sheed peaked at 26/27. KG peaked at 27/28. Duncan peaked at 27/28. Jermaine O'Neal peaked at 26. The only big man I can think of who peaked after the age of 30 was Karl Malone. Due to the weight they carry and the physical nature of battling against other large men causes a lot of wear and tear on the knees, feet and ankles of NBA power forwards and centers. It's only natural that their performance declines as they age. Again, I'm not saying Aldridge will instantly suck as soon as he turns 30, just that history shows most big men decline after the age of 30. Maybe Aldridge will be a rare exception, but I wouldn't count on it. BNM BNM
No one was talking about peaking. What you said was: "once he passes 30 years old, his performance will start to decline." This is a FAR CRY away from "peaked after the age of 30". What I disagreed with was the 1st statement of declining after 30. First off, I don't accept Dirk as being one. He had better years at ages 30 and 31 than he did at age 29. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/n/nowitdi01.html Did you really bring up O'Neal? He was injured a HELL of a lot between 26-30. He don't count. Time Duncan had a WAY better year at age 30 than he did at 29. (he shot .546 in that season man! That is his 2nd best FG% his entire career) http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duncati01.html Then there's David Robinson. When he was 30 he was averaging the most rebounds since he was 26. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/robinda01.html But lets talk about the one you really missed. Hakeem Olajuwon. From age 29 to 30 his scoring average JUMPED 5 points per. He averaged the 2nd most blocks per game in his career. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/olajuha01.html
29 to 30 is NOT the same thing as after 30. So, you don't think that players in general, or big men specifically, tend to see their performance decline after the age of 30? Your examples actually make my case. Go back and look at the links you provided. With the exception of Hakeem, those players peaked at around 29 - 30 and saw their performance steadily decline AFTER the age of 30 - which is exactly what I said. Go back and look at Dirk's advanced stats. His peak years were clearly at 26, 27 and 28 (league MVP). And based on his advanced stats, he was better at 29 than 30 and 31. Yes, Duncan as better at 30 than 29, but not as good as he was at 25 (MVP), 26 (MVP), 27 and 28. Robinson's peak years were at 28, 29 (MVP) and 30. At 31 he was injured and only played in 6 games and his performance steadily declined after that. Olajuwon is the only one on your list that you could argue peaked at (or after) the age of 30. He had his best season AT 30 and won MVP at 31 - all the others mentioned won MVP in their mid to late 20s. In the 57 years the NBA has been giving out MVP awards, eight MVPs have been won by players 31 years and older and 5 more by players at the age of 30. The other 44 MVP winners were in their 20s. And, here's the kicker, most of the players who won MVP after 30, won multiple MVP awards in their 20s (Jordan, Kareem, Magic, Wilt, Russell, etc.). In other words, even guys who were great in their 30s, were even better (aka: peaked) in their 20s. The only exceptions in the entire history of the MVP award are Nash, Hakeem and Malone. They account for 5 of the 57 total MVP awards. And why not bring up O'Neal? Injuries are part of the aging process and is one of the major reasons performance declines with age. A few, very rare players, like Karl Malone, manage to avoid major injuries into their mid-30s, but they are very rare exceptions. I sure hope Aldridge is one of those rare exceptions, but it's not a give he will be. Aldridge missed more games last season (11) than Malone did the entire 18 years he played for Utah (8 total, 3 of those due to suspensions). So clearly, Aldridge isn't the iron man Malone was. So, I stand by my original assertion that, like most players in the history of the league, Aldridge's performance will likely begin to decline after the age of 30. BNM
You guys aren't considering coaching changes as a reason. Olajuwon at 29 had Don Chaney. At 30 he had Rudy Tomjanovich, whose whole system was, give Hakeem the ball and let him do whatever the earlier Rocket coach Bill Fitch had taught him, which Tomjanovich didn't understand. That's why his stats went up at 30.
It's like you didn't read this: Again I said nothing about peaking after the age of 30. You did in a separate post. But in this post you made no mention of peak years. I disagreed with this post saying his performance will start to decline after 30 and I still do. There is no mention of peak years in this quote. Simply that he will decline after 30. And this: "Yes, Duncan as better at 30 than 29, but not as good as he was at 25 (MVP), 26 (MVP), 27 and 28." Proves my point. That the age of 30 is NOT an indicator of when a player's performance will decline. I have never talked about when a player is at his peak nor that he will peak AFTER that age. Seems like we are arguing about apples and oranges.
I guess we just disagree on the definition of decline. To me, it means a general, but not necessarily monotonic (often due to injuries), downward trend in performance over time. Duncan's performance peaked at 25 - 28. Those were his best years. Yes, he as still very good at 30, but his performance had declined compared to what it was at 25 - 28. So, if it doesn't mean "less than peak" what is your definition of decline? BNM
Your statement is pretty clear. ""once he passes 30 years old, his performance will start to decline" If you have a better year at 30 than you did at 29 then your performance has not declined...
What if your performance at 30 was less than it was at 25, 26, 27 and 28. Is that not declining performance? BNM
