<div align="left"> <pre>por 23.0</pre> <pre>lal 23.2</pre> <pre>gsw 23.7</pre> <pre>phl 24.3</pre> <pre>was 24.4</pre> <pre>sea 24.6</pre> <pre>cha 24.9</pre> <pre>atl 25.0</pre> <pre>mil 25.0</pre> <pre>mem 25.1</pre> <pre>chi 25.2</pre> <pre>nok 25.3</pre> <pre>njn 25.5</pre> <pre>nyk 25.5</pre> <pre>uth 25.5</pre> <pre>tor 25.7</pre> <pre>minn 25.8</pre> <pre>bos 25.9</pre> <pre>hou 26.2</pre> <pre>sac 26.2</pre> <pre>ind 26.3</pre> <pre>dal 26.4</pre> <pre>det 26.4</pre> <pre>lac 26.5</pre> <pre>orl 25.7</pre> <pre>den 27.1</pre> <pre>mia 27.1</pre> <pre>phx 28.0</pre> <pre>cle 28.6</pre> <pre>sas 29.2</pre> </div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left">Shouldnt be much of a surprise with Cliff Robinson, Mikki Moore, and Eddie House being replaced by Sean Wlliams, Jamaal Magloire and Robert Hite. That's a loss of 31 years.</div><div align="left"></div><div align="left"></div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left">Some interesting points...that Portland is the youngest team shouldn't surprise anyone, but that the Lakers are second sure should. Of course, they are rebuilding. </div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left"></div><div align="left"></div><div align="left">Two oldest teams, Spurs and Cavs faced off in the finals. </div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left"></div><div align="left"></div><div align="left">Numbers derived from team average age on ESPN rosters...</div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left"></div><div align="left"></div><div align="left">http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/teams/roster?team=atl </div><div align='left'></div>
These figures are misleading though. I mean the Lakers are young because other than Kobe and Lamar (to a lesser extent Walton) its scrubs united. Cavs being so old does surprise though, is this a signal of their peak already. Only way from here is down?</p>
They are hardly misleading. They are what they are. You can interpret them any way you wish. But the numbers are what they are. </p> The Lakers had two teenagers in their rotation last season: Bynum and Farmar. </p> </p> </p>
I think it can be misleading, because it takes into account everyone, and not just guys who play or are part of the core rotation.</p> I'm sure that it doesn't lead a lot of deviation, but it can be misleading in that regard.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (L)</div><div class='quotemain'>Too bad our young players arent potential stars. :<</div></p> Too bad you have so little faith in theten players on the roster under the age of 27 and thus not yet at their peak: Jefferson, Nachbar, [both 27]Robinson [26], Krstic [24], Wright [23], Hite [23],Boone, Ilic, [both 22]Marcus Williams [21] and Sean Williams [20].</p> Only two Nets are over 30years old: their two best players. </p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'> I think it can be misleading, because it takes into account everyone, and not just guys who play or are part of the core rotation.</p> I'm sure that it doesn't lead a lot of deviation, but it can be misleading in that regard.</p> </div></p> Again, the numbers are not misleading.They are raw, factual. Yourview of them as evidence of something else brings subjective measure to them All I posted wasthe raw numbers...other than noting that the two oldest teams were in the championship round. And it would appear thatthat is not the issue for you and theothers. </p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'> I think it can be misleading, because it takes into account everyone, and not just guys who play or are part of the core rotation.</p> I'm sure that it doesn't lead a lot of deviation, but it can be misleading in that regard. </p> </div></p> Again, the numbers are not misleading. They are raw, factual. Your view of them as evidence of something else brings subjective measure to them All I posted was the raw numbers...other than noting that the two oldest teams were in the championship round. And it would appear that that is not the issue for you and the others. </p> </p> </div></p> </p> I think what the misviewing is that these numbers take into account the whole roster, when the term 'team' doesn't really take into account bit players who could change the teams ages, although they never play and wouldn't be considered when talking about that 'team'. Someone like Kevin Willis could sway the Mavericks average age up, same with Pat Burke, Michael Doleac, etc...</p> That's the problem with these numbers, methinks. They are useless numbers, because of the outliers.</p> A more accurate accumulation of these numbers would include something like starting 5, top 8 rotation, number of players, among other factors. </p>
KC's right. Why should Illic's, Robinson's, and Hite's ages be considered? They are on the team in name only, and don't factor into how we perform.</p> NI you're perfectly welcome to include their ages in your analysis, but you must be warry of what you're talking about. The list you put above does indeed rank the team's by their ages. It's also useless.</p> The study is designed to try and find a relation between the ages of teams and how well they perform in the NBA. Including players who simply don't perform makes the study poorly designed and inaccurate with respect to their goals.</p> A better study would restrict the players who are counted based on average minutes played per game, but even that is subjective to the whim of the analyst.</p>
Well using this Toronto is older than the Nets yet our key players are still way young than your key players.</p> Who cares how old the DNP CD's are. How old are the teams on the floor?</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (peg182)</div><div class='quotemain'> umm...i think portland's age thing is wrong. </p> isn't oden like 35?</p> </div> Posts like this are why S2 needs a rep system.</p> GMJigga's idea of weighting the ages by minutes played seems like a pretty good idea, that should get you better numbers than just a straight average. </p>
