I already did and showed how Kyrie's TS% goes down by quarter. BTW, his 4th quarter 3FG% is .299. You're the one who stated "36 minutes has been shown as optimal". Fine, show me the data that backs up your claim. BNM
I'd be a crappy voter....I'd do my own stats and count games missed as 0 points for that game. For example, Kyrie has missed 7 games (and will miss more), so that's 7 games of 0 points, which would significantly effect his average. Lillard has missed 7 games, so he too would get 7 games of 0 points.
No it's not. 18 points is better than 12. The guy that scored 12 points doesn't necessarily score 36 points in 36 minutes. In fact he may score only 17 points in 36 minutes.
OK, I did some googling and can't find a single reference that says anything remotely like 36 MPG is optimal playing time for a basketball player at any level. In fact, there isn't a lot of data on performance vs. playing time for basketball. There is data for other sports. The Europeans seem to be leading the world in this area of research. So, there's quite a bit of data that shows foot velocity deceasing over the course of a soccer match, etc. Most of the basketball studies are focused on risk of serious injury vs. playing time and all of those show a very dramatic increase in the frequency and severity of injuries as playing time (and fatigue) increases. Most of those studies make vague references to physical performance decreasing with fatigue. There are two types of fatigue that contribute to both decreased performance and injury risk: short term fatigue (tiring as the game progresses) and long term fatigue (players who play big minutes over the course of a season - we should call this the Thibodeau effect). Both types of fatigue impact in game performance, but long term fatigue has a much greater impact on injury risk. So, playing an extra four minutes in any specific game may only have a minor impact on performance, but playing an extra 4 minutes per game over the course of an 82-game season has a MUCH greater impact. Those extra 4 minutes per game add up and wear a player down. Which is exactly why you see so many coaches resting their starters as the season winds down. They want them fresh for the playoffs. This is all just me summarizing several articles I found. None of them had anything like a simple graph that showed declining performance vs. playing time, but several mentioned is was a "well known fact" that performance levels decline with increased playing time. Most of these are articles in scientific or medical journals, and as mentioned, include sports other than basketball. There were a couple articles that showed how FT percentage decreases with fatigue and how the trajectory of a long jump shot also decreases with muscle fatigue. There are articles containing graphs and bar charts showing how susceptibility to serious injury increases with increased playing time. Of course, even this varies from individual to individual. Given Kyrie Irving's injury history (which is the single biggest factor in determining likelihood of future injury), he probably shouldn't be playing 36 MPG over the course of an NBA season. He just isn't that durable. Damian Lillard on the other hand , to this point in his career, has proven to be a much more durable player. Dame averages 36.4 MPG over the course of his career and has played almost 1600 more minutes in 6 NBA seasons than Kyrie Irving has in 7 NBA season. The simple fact is Lillard is capable of playing more minutes per game and per season than Kyrie Irving. In terms of physical performance vs. playing time, all of the references I read agree that physical performance decreases with fatigue. How rapidly it declines varies from individual to individual, depends on the particular type of physical activity, etc. But, it is universally accepted that after an initial warm up period, followed by a period of peak physical performance, physical performance declines. In some sports, such as soccer, that period of peak performance can be as short as five minutes (if a player is going all out for those 5 minutes) and requires 5 minutes of rest to return to that same level of physical performance. The fact that physical performance is not a linear function with respect to playing time (I could not find a single study that says it is), makes "stats" like per-36 numbers in basketball highly unreliable. Such linear interpolations assume that each and every player will perform identically at minute 1 as they do at minute 10 as they at minute 36, and that's simply not true - for any athlete. Throw in the impact of long term fatigue of playing an extra four minutes per game, and there is really no basis to say any player will perform at the same level playing 36 MPG as they do playing 32 MPG. And while there may not be a specific study with a nice graph or chart that shows declining performance vs. increased playing time, every coach alive knows this. Otherwise, they would never rest their players except in a blow out. They wouldn't sit them in the first, second, or third quarters until the game was well in hand. Currently, of 450 players in the NBA, only 12 are averaging =>36 MPG (for comparison 51 are averaging => 32 MPG), and that number is high compared to recent years. Usually, those numbers come down late in the season, especially as teams lock in their playoff seeding, teams out of the playoff picture rest their veterans in favor of developing their younger players, etc. That may not be the case this year, with such tight playoff races in both conference. In recent years, the number of players that averaged 36 MPG has been: 2014-15 - 6 players averaged => 36 MPG 2015-16 - 7 players averaged => 36 MPG 2016-17 - 8 players averaged => 36 MPG 2017-18 - 12 players averaging (so far) => 36 MPG A player capable of playing that many minutes over the course of an NBA season is pretty rare. Assuming every player is capable of performing at their peak level while averaging 36 MPG is a fallacy. If there was any validity to the notion that optimal performance peaked at 36, you'd see a lot more players averaging 36 MPG. BNM
I've only seen per36 accurately predict one player: Zach Randolph. His per36 numbers as a rookie were pretty consistent with his career overall.
Here's some additional interesting numbers for you (>=50 games, >=36mpg) 1976-77 -- 22 players 1977-78 -- 19 players 1978-79 -- 22 players 1979-80 -- 20 plauers 1986-87 -- 29 players 1987-88 -- 26 players 1988-89 -- 29 players 1989-90 -- 28 players
And even though his game does not depend on quickness or athleticism, his per-36 performance peaked at the age of 25 years. After several years of declining per-36 performance, his per minute production has enjoyed a late career uptick as his minutes have been reduced from ~34 MPG to ~24 MPG. Even a guy who can't jump over a Portland phone book needs his rest to perform at his highest level. BNM
I personally think that the quality of the effort has gone up over the years, given how many players used to play over 36 mpg (especially as a percentage of total players) in the ‘70s and ‘80s versus today.
We've learned a lot about athletic performance in the last 30 - 40 years. Not just basketball. Look at baseball and the scarcity of complete games pitched in recent years. Back in the 70s, most starters were expected to go 8 or 9 innings and either complete the game (win or lose), or turn it over to a close. Middle relief was usually handled by the worst pitchers on the staff, and only when the starter was having an exceptionally bad day. When you brought in a middle reliever, it was akin to waiving a white flag and conceding defeat. In the modern game, they track the starter's velocity and pull him much earlier once it starts to decline. They know a fresh middle reliever is going to have more life in his arm than a starter who's gone five or six innings. Back in the late 1960s through mid-1970s, it wasn't uncommon for pitchers like Steve Carlton, Fergie Jenkins and Juan Marichal to have 30 complete games in a single season. The current active MLB leader in career complete games is CC Sabathia, with 38 complete games in 17 seasons - an average of 2.2 complete games per season. BNM
This forum might not be the audience to try convincing that the 70s and 80s were a lower quality product than today
Yep, rather than come out of the game back then, many players would rest while on the court, taking a play off here and there to catch their breath. But that's not the same thing as coming out of the game for five minutes and resting on the bench. I'd much rather see players playing at their peak level in the 4th quarter with the game on the line than be exhausted because their coach didn't rest them in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarters. BNM
Hey, I'm old enough to remember those days when the league wide 3FG% was less than .250. Yeah, the game was different back then, and there were some truly great individual players, but trust me the overall quality of play is better now than it was then. BNM
What about them???? My entire point is physical performance declines as playing time increases (after an initial warm up period). You were the one claiming 36 MPG, not 35 MPG, not 32 MPG, is "optimum". Provide some data to back up your statement. BNM
Unlike Kyrie, Dame has proven durable enough to average > 36 MPG for his six years NBA career. It then comes down to what would you rather have, an extra 4 minutes of a mildly fatigued Dame, or an extra 4 minutes of a less fatigued Shabazz? And, I think that is a game by game decision. The Blazers have been in a lot of close games where they need their best player on the floor to seal a win. 36 MPG Dame may not be as efficient as 32 MPG Dame, but he's still better than 25 MPG Shabazz. That's not meant as a slight to Shabazz. Just pointing out that Dame is one of the best 4th quarter performers in the league. BNM
