According to Mike Woodson the Knicks decided to go MEGA old because youthful teams do not win titles:
“Young guys aren’t winning an NBA title’’
The logic goes like this: youthful teams don’t win titles –>; the Knicks shouldn’t be youthful –>; the Knicks should sign THE OLDEST GUYS POSSIBLE (the Knicks have 40% of the league’s ten oldest guys). Thus, according to the Wall Street Journal (h/t The Knicks Wall), the Knicks have assembled literally the oldest team EVAR, at 32 2/3 years old. But in swinging the pendulum all the way to one extreme, did the Knicks do themselves any favors in their ostensible goal, “winning an NBA title”?
I don’t work for STATS, LLC, but I do have the Google machine, and I found this chart from the Mavericks TrueHoop affiliate The Two Man Game that breaks down the average and weighted ages for finals contestants between 1991 and 2010 (they compiled the chart before the 2011 finals and included the Mavericks for the sake of comparison):
I haven’t endeavored to normalize the Knicks’ age for the likely minutes each player will play because I lost my calculator and I’m not prescient. Focusing only average age however, if the Knicks win the title, they’ll be an extreme outlier. That’s another way of saying that despite Grunwald’s best intentions, and Woodson’s proclamation that “[y]oung guys aren’t winning an NBA title”, old guys aren’t winning an NBA title, either.
Love your blog most of the time, but how about actually doing the work and then writing the blog rather than just cutting and pasting someone else’s? Weighted age will be really important in this discussion, since the guys that REALLY drag the age upward will be playing probably no more than a TOTAL of 1/4 or 1/5 of the total minutes played (probably 20-25 min for Kidd, 15 min for Camby, and less for Kidd once Shumpert comes back). This season is in real trouble if Rasheed and especially Kurt Thomas are playing meaningful minutes.
The average age is also thrown off by the fact that there are literally no rookies left on this team. No undrafted FAs, no 2nd round picks filling up roster spots. If you consider that in many cases, those players are unplayable in a big spot, having a lower average age because of a bunch of unplayable rooks might actually be statistically bad for winning.
Thanks Frank. I appreciate the comment.
I did explain that I didn’t want to stay up all night and get as granular as you suggest, after all this isn’t my job, but I’ll indulge this experiment to a limited degree here. That said, I think you’re right. The weighted age is going to be lower than the average age but it might not make as much of a difference as you think. Yes, Melo (28), Amare (29), Chandler (30), Brewer (27), Smith (27) (and at some point Shumpert (22) – let’s split the baby and call that 25 years old) and Felton (28) are going to get most of the minutes. That average is 27.8. Let’s say they get 75% of the minutes – 36 mpg (I think that’s generous).
Let’s say Kidd, Novak, Camby, Thomas and Wallace get the other 30% of the minutes. You get an average of 36.8. That doesn’t include Prigioni.
If I’m doing my math right you wind up with a weighted average of 30.05. Still at the very high end of the chart above. Near some of the Bulls and Spurs teams that have won titles in within the last two decades. I’m not going to put the Knicks in their class. Not just yet.
Now you might challenge even these assumptions (and I’m sure you will), but I’d that’s about as much math as anyone is going to get me to do at an 8AM.
Love it- thanks. I still think the super old guys can be really effective in spot minutes. Much different than the Mavs who had Dirk, Kidd, Marion all logging starter minutes, and the Celtics with a 38 year old Garnett who is really their only good interioR defender and who will need to play 35-40 min in a big game For the Celts to have a shot to win.