Those numbers are off. I don't have them with me (enjoying s cocktail) but the numbers were in the 150's during the prep to pro era for guys over 33 as of 1996. It was a staggering amount. In 2005 (last year of prep to pro) it was down a little bit the number of Hs players had dropped. Again going off memory so bare with me. Note when I did it the first time I did 33 and over and 35 and over.
I hadn't done 30 and over yet, but the numbers were like 40% higher then than now. And the numbers now are 400% higher than the early 80's

(03-11-2015 05:39 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Those numbers are off. I don't have them with me (enjoying s cocktail) but the numbers were in the 150's during the prep to pro era for guys over 33 as of 1996. It was a staggering amount. In 2005 (last year of prep to pro) it was down a little bit the number of Hs players had dropped. Again going off memory so bare with me. Note when I did it the first time I did 33 and over and 35 and over.
I hadn't done 30 and over yet, but the numbers were like 40% higher then than now. And the numbers now are 400% higher than the early 80's

sorry- went to basketball-reference.com and went to the sortable stats and sorted by stats. So those 3 specific years are 100% correct.
2005- 26 guys 35 and older, 117 30 and older
464 players total that year.
1985- 6 guys 35 and older, 49 30 and older
(part of that only 320 players total that year)
so about a third more players in 2005 than were in the league 20 years prior. 2015 number so far is 478 total.

(03-11-2015 05:54 PM)stever20 Wrote:  sorry- went to basketball-reference.com and went to the sortable stats and sorted by stats. So those 3 specific years are 100% correct.
2005- 26 guys 35 and older, 117 30 and older
464 players total that year.
1985- 6 guys 35 and older, 49 30 and older
(part of that only 320 players total that year)
so about a third more players in 2005 than were in the league 20 years prior. 2015 number so far is 478 total.

See what happens when we talk and I am not on a computer? I did not realize you were quoting 2005. Misread it or something. The staggering numbers are turn of the century when prep to pros were in full swing.

in 2000-01 the number of player over 30 were 155 (remembering there were 29 teams instead of 30), there were 74 over 33 years old, and 39 over 35 years old. To compare (I use 33 as a matrix because that is typically when non-superstar vets tend to star retiring) here is how ever year looks going back to 1990 which was about was the last year players stayed 4 years with top players leaving after 3 - every first round pick but two were seniors, Chris Jackson (Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf)who was a sophomore, and Dennis Scott who was a junior (both were top 4 picks). Note that 1991 was a mostly senior draft with 3 Juniors and one So.


As I was saying before, there is a HUGE bubble when the preps were allowed in. Keep in mind now that when HS players came, it also upped the number of frosh in the draft and so forth. Also note, and it would be unfair of me to not mention, the drafting of international players has also added to this. however international player drafting has not changed, however the change of HS player eligibility has shown a reduction is older players.

International player drafting has changed- going up and up each year.

Thing is there was a 6 year run where there was an elevated number of older players(97-02). The question is was the age limit the only factor? I don't think it was . You had expansion, which allowed older players to stick around longer than normal. Don't think you can discount this at all.

I just don't think you can do a simple cause/effect on this . I mean if what you are saying is true, why the decrease in older players from 2001 to 2005? 38 fewer 30 yr old players, 18 fewer 33 yr old players, and 13 fewer 35 yr old players.

(03-11-2015 10:42 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I just don't think you can do a simple cause/effect on this . I mean if what you are saying is true, why the decrease in older players from 2001 to 2005? 38 fewer 30 yr old players, 18 fewer 33 yr old players, and 13 fewer 35 yr old players.

Well for one, this is specifically the reason the NBAPA is for this. When I first heard someone mention this (it wasn't my idea, came from an agent) I thought it was absurd. I had the same reaction you did. Then I looked at the numbers and I was blown away. You are also only looking at one data set. Above, you will also see the average age of the league. Despite the average age of draftees being much lower the last 20 years then ever before, which should lower the average age, it went up. It was WAY up during the prep to pro years. But it is still higher now than pre-high school players, but lower than during that time. The over 30 players just adds to the point. There are probably more guys 27-29 as well who normally wash out because they didn't develop, but stuck around due to the younger ones (pure speculation, too many numbers to crunch to do again).

International players (most) are older when they come over. That is why more are being drafted today then 10 years ago, and yet the average NBA age is still lower now than then. But both are much higher than pre-1995. Really there is probably a big shift in the median age as well, but I don't have those numbers. It is because more draftees are not ready, or outright flush out, allowing guys who would have been cut in years past who were past their time, keep a job. Is what it is.

Also the expansion years (1988, 1989, 1993, 2002) don't show any major jumps compared to other years. 87 to 88 showed only one extra 35 YO, and the number of 30 year olds did go up from 88 to 89 by 7, the other measurements were about the same. The numbers went down sharply when the new Charlotte franchise came in, So we can discount it. Especially since the number ballooned even above the pro-rated number

(03-11-2015 10:57 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  International players (most) are older when they come over. That is why more are being drafted today then 10 years ago

IMO the biggest reason more international players are drafted is that the NBA now has a rule that a team retains the rights to its international draftees even if they stay in Europe for a few years. Drafting an international player now has multiple benefits: When he comes to the NBA, he's more experienced; if he stays in Europe for a couple of years, you don't have to pay him/squeeze him under the salary cap right away; it's a way to draft for the future and let the player develop in Europe, letting the NBA club decide at a later date whether to bring the player over here.

(03-11-2015 11:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  IMO the biggest reason more international players are drafted is that the NBA now has a rule that a team retains the rights to its international draftees even if they stay in Europe for a few years. Drafting an international player now has multiple benefits: When he comes to the NBA, he's more experienced; if he stays in Europe for a couple of years, you don't have to pay him/squeeze him under the salary cap right away; it's a way to draft for the future and let the player develop in Europe, letting the NBA club decide at a later date whether to bring the player over here.

I agree. But the ones who fit that bill are as big of gambles as HS players (if they are high picks), although the one BIG difference is that they don't take a guaranteed roster spot or eat up cap space while deciding. And of course they can decline signing them down the line if they know it won't work.

Sorry If already posted but Why Would the Players Union ever want to bring in even younger Kids into the League. This Only hurts the older More established Players and bargaining powers. Truth is, I don't even watch the NBA anymore as it's just become a big corporate conglomeration.

(03-12-2015 07:20 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Sorry If already posted but Why Would the Players Union ever want to bring in even younger Kids into the League. This Only hurts the older More established Players and bargaining powers. Truth is, I don't even watch the NBA anymore as it's just become a big corporate conglomeration.

If you look at the numbers that was posted in this thread it actually helps the older players stay in the league longer since HS players flame out...also, truth be told the NBA is a Much Better Game to watch right now then College Basketball...the Association Brand of play hasn't been better IMO.

(03-12-2015 07:20 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Sorry If already posted but Why Would the Players Union ever want to bring in even younger Kids into the League. This Only hurts the older More established Players and bargaining powers. Truth is, I don't even watch the NBA anymore as it's just become a big corporate conglomeration.

Interesting coming from a fan of a school that plays at the KFC Yum! Center. Not criticizing Louisville in the slightest (great program), but major college ball is basically the same as the NBA in terms of commercialism and advertisments.

(03-12-2015 09:33 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 07:20 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Sorry If already posted but Why Would the Players Union ever want to bring in even younger Kids into the League. This Only hurts the older More established Players and bargaining powers. Truth is, I don't even watch the NBA anymore as it's just become a big corporate conglomeration.

If you look at the numbers that was posted in this thread it actually helps the older players stay in the league longer since HS players flame out...also, truth be told the NBA is a Much Better Game to watch right now then College Basketball...the Association Brand of play hasn't been better IMO.

The NBA has been fantastic the past five or so seasons. I really think advanced analytics have raised the entertainment value. Long gone are the days of 83-75 slug it out fests where teams shoot 34% from the field. If you can't shoot (or get to the line), you can't play for any extended period of time in games.

It's unfortuante that 8 of the top 10 teams play in the Western Conference though. It hurts your brand when your big weekday games don't start until 1030 EST.

(03-12-2015 09:43 AM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 09:33 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 07:20 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Sorry If already posted but Why Would the Players Union ever want to bring in even younger Kids into the League. This Only hurts the older More established Players and bargaining powers. Truth is, I don't even watch the NBA anymore as it's just become a big corporate conglomeration.

If you look at the numbers that was posted in this thread it actually helps the older players stay in the league longer since HS players flame out...also, truth be told the NBA is a Much Better Game to watch right now then College Basketball...the Association Brand of play hasn't been better IMO.

The NBA has been fantastic the past five or so seasons. I really think advanced analytics have raised the entertainment value. Long gone are the days of 83-75 slug it out fests where teams shoot 34% from the field. If you can't shoot (or get to the line), you can't play for any extended period of time in games.

It's unfortuante that 8 of the top 10 teams play in the Western Conference though. It hurts your brand when your big weekday games don't start until 1030 EST.

The East does have 3 Very Good Teams in Atlanta, Cleveland and Toronto...but the West this year in the Playoffs is Must Watch TV from the 1st Round on...

(03-12-2015 09:49 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 09:43 AM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 09:33 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 07:20 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Sorry If already posted but Why Would the Players Union ever want to bring in even younger Kids into the League. This Only hurts the older More established Players and bargaining powers. Truth is, I don't even watch the NBA anymore as it's just become a big corporate conglomeration.

If you look at the numbers that was posted in this thread it actually helps the older players stay in the league longer since HS players flame out...also, truth be told the NBA is a Much Better Game to watch right now then College Basketball...the Association Brand of play hasn't been better IMO.

The NBA has been fantastic the past five or so seasons. I really think advanced analytics have raised the entertainment value. Long gone are the days of 83-75 slug it out fests where teams shoot 34% from the field. If you can't shoot (or get to the line), you can't play for any extended period of time in games.

It's unfortuante that 8 of the top 10 teams play in the Western Conference though. It hurts your brand when your big weekday games don't start until 1030 EST.

The East does have 3 Very Good Teams in Atlanta, Cleveland and Toronto...but the West this year in the Playoffs is Must Watch TV from the 1st Round on...

Toronto has the worst record in the NBA since the break. They're falling off a cliff faster than my Bullets.

(03-12-2015 09:50 AM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 09:49 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 09:43 AM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 09:33 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 07:20 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Sorry If already posted but Why Would the Players Union ever want to bring in even younger Kids into the League. This Only hurts the older More established Players and bargaining powers. Truth is, I don't even watch the NBA anymore as it's just become a big corporate conglomeration.

If you look at the numbers that was posted in this thread it actually helps the older players stay in the league longer since HS players flame out...also, truth be told the NBA is a Much Better Game to watch right now then College Basketball...the Association Brand of play hasn't been better IMO.

The NBA has been fantastic the past five or so seasons. I really think advanced analytics have raised the entertainment value. Long gone are the days of 83-75 slug it out fests where teams shoot 34% from the field. If you can't shoot (or get to the line), you can't play for any extended period of time in games.

It's unfortuante that 8 of the top 10 teams play in the Western Conference though. It hurts your brand when your big weekday games don't start until 1030 EST.

The East does have 3 Very Good Teams in Atlanta, Cleveland and Toronto...but the West this year in the Playoffs is Must Watch TV from the 1st Round on...

Toronto has the worst record in the NBA since the break. They're falling off a cliff faster than my Bullets.

They do need to pick it back up but I think they will...Chicago is going to be worn out because Thibs style is brutal...

(03-12-2015 09:43 AM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 09:33 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 07:20 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Sorry If already posted but Why Would the Players Union ever want to bring in even younger Kids into the League. This Only hurts the older More established Players and bargaining powers. Truth is, I don't even watch the NBA anymore as it's just become a big corporate conglomeration.

If you look at the numbers that was posted in this thread it actually helps the older players stay in the league longer since HS players flame out...also, truth be told the NBA is a Much Better Game to watch right now then College Basketball...the Association Brand of play hasn't been better IMO.

The NBA has been fantastic the past five or so seasons. I really think advanced analytics have raised the entertainment value. Long gone are the days of 83-75 slug it out fests where teams shoot 34% from the field. If you can't shoot (or get to the line), you can't play for any extended period of time in games.

It's unfortuante that 8 of the top 10 teams play in the Western Conference though. It hurts your brand when your big weekday games don't start until 1030 EST.

Given the absurd imbalance between the conferences, what's unfortunate is that 8 of the Eastern Conference teams make the playoffs.

They ought to fix that, and Silver has said he wants to, but he understands that Eastern Conference owners are never going to give up their 8 guaranteed playoff spots, no matter how many of those spots go to sub-.500 teams, and they're not going to vote for a playoff format that might lead to Eastern Conference teams having to face Western Conference teams prior to the finals.

Just to summarize what Stever and I discussed above, here is an updated chart



As Stever mentioned yes there are other explanations possible, but you see big bubbles in the average length of careers, average age, and more older players during the years the draft was a complete wreck with HS players, and the subsequent college players who were coming out earlier than before, and competing against lesser competition due to the best talent never making it to campus. Once the Prep to pro's were banned, and all had to spend a year in college (or elsewhere) it somewhat stabilized the draft. Kids are still leaving early as frosh and sophomores, but GMs have more data to go on, and you have "less" busts then you had 15 years ago, and has brought the average age of the NBA back down some, and lowered the number of vets (older players). Note when I talk about "vets" in a negative light, I don't mean anything by it, and I am certainly not talking about the older players who are stars such as Kobe, Dirk, KG, etc. But in an ideal world, older vets who are not bench or role players, would have been replaced by younger guys. Guys like Nazr Muhammad, Vince Carter (oldest player in the league), Turkoglu, John Salmons, Brendon Haywood, Elton Brand, Joel Anthony, Mike Miller, Francisco Garcia etc, those guys should have been washed out of the league by now and replaced by guys who were drafted 5-6 years ago who are still around. Adding another year between HS and the draft helps the scouts even more, helps the players too (you can develop in the NBA, but you develop faster in college), and would help the long term health of the league. But at the expense of current veteran jobs. At least IMO.

It's just not a simple causation... I mean in the 96-97 season, we had 3 High School players in the league who were drafted. '95 draft had Garnett, '96 had Bryant and Jermaine O'Neal. So to attribute the leap from '96 to '97 on HS players is folly. '97 draft had 1 HS player- McGrady. Even '98 draft only had 3. So the spike I don't think had anything to do with the High School players. If anything, when it got bigger with the HS draftees it started lowering the # of older players(which makes sense).

(03-12-2015 11:15 AM)stever20 Wrote:  It's just not a simple causation... I mean in the 96-97 season, we had 3 High School players in the league who were drafted. '95 draft had Garnett, '96 had Bryant and Jermaine O'Neal. So to attribute the leap from '96 to '97 on HS players is folly. '97 draft had 1 HS player- McGrady. Even '98 draft only had 3. So the spike I don't think had anything to do with the High School players. If anything, when it got bigger with the HS draftees it started lowering the # of older players(which makes sense).

You are looking at it as simply HS players. It's the overall age of players. There was a significant influx of younger players in the draft starting in 1993. That was when sophomores started flooding the draft, and then freshmen. When KG entered, it was not the "start" of the deterioration of the draft: it was more of the walls crashing. There really were not "that" many prep to pro players. And about half did okay. The issue was the cause and effect: more HS players go, means less talent in college, and more freshmen go. More freshmen go, and then more sophomores who in normal years are not ready, go in the draft. And so forth. In terms of simplicity, it is not as easy as you are making it out to be. The draft analysis would take too much time to do, because I'd have to literally count each pick (I can't find anyplace where I can datamine that easily) but too many people harp on simply the prep to pro's. It's not just them. Their entry into the draft basically dropped the average age (experience) of draftees even further due to the void left. As I mentioned in 1990 all but one first round pick was a senior. By 1996 there were 12 college seniors taken in the first round. By 2001 there were 5, a number that has remained relatively steady I would imagine for the next several years, between roughly 4-8 seniors).

That is a HUGE difference. and the numbers reflect it. By keeping the top talent in college for at least two years, it not only helps weed out players who are not ready, it battle tests the other players, and keeps the next level of player, the ones currently coming out as sophomores, in school for four years, due to the competition not really allowing for them to leave early. They was it was in the 1980's, when the NBA was probably as deep as it ever was.

1990-
1 sophomore

1991-
1 sophomore

1992-
no freshman, sophomore

1993 draft
1 freshman
1 sophomore

1994 draft
1 freshman, 2 sophmores

so 90-94 1 freshman, 5 sophomores taken...
95- 4 sophomores

so in the '95-'96 season you had league wide 11 players that were drafted sophomores or lower. That doesn't explain why in '95 you had 102/36/13 and in '96 you had 112/39/18.

Then '96 draft-
2 HS players
2 freshman
6 sophomores

so up to at most 19 guys drafted sophomores or lower.

1996-97 season goes from '96 you had 112/39/18 to '97 you had 132/67/28.

you are desperate to prove the point that you are not doing. I cannot explain it to you any more. The proof is right there. And the NBAPA is fighting against it for the same reason. We went from all senior drafts in 1990 to 4 seniors in the first round in 2000. If you cannot see how that changes things, there is no point in continuing this. You are just being stubborn at that point. Further, as much as you seem to disagree, you actually offer no proof to your point, other than saying it doesn't prove anything, which is not true to anyone in power. It is the reason he NBA is fighting so hard to increase the limit, and the reason he NBAPA is against it. Or at least against it for free -it's been proven in court that the rule only holds up if collectively bargained, so the players must agree to it. But these numbers are the reason they won't to hold onto it, as it preserves veteran jobs.