Do Smalls wear better than Bigs?

by **bobheckler** Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:28 pm

First off, Kudos to babyskyhook for sparking interest in this topic. He mentioned this in one of his posts on another thread (I think he was explaining why he felt that Kobe could play for a lot more years) and while I responded to another part of that post, I thought it touched on such a good point that it deserved a thread of its own.

Do smalls wear better than bigs? I'm not talking about the Lindsey Hunters of the NBA, who ride the pine all year and are there to essentially to mentor the kids, but who are significant contributors (even as bench players) well into their late '30s. Do guards really age slower than forwards and centers?

It seems to me that for every John Stockton (40) and John Havlicek (37) you name there are several Robert Parishs (played with Boston until he was 40 and then played 3 more years after that), Kareems (41), Moses Malones (39, but started right out of high school), Karl Malones (40) and David Robinsons (39). Obviously, I'm talking about the best of the best. Marginal players have shorter careers but that has nothing to do with their aging, but rather their talent levels.

It occurs to me the smaller players seem to retire in the 33-36 range while PFs and Cs can go late 30s and even early 40s.

Notice, all the players I highlighted above are "old-timers". I did that because I wanted to compare players receiving the benefits of comparable medical technology. A MCL back in the 60s was a career-ender, nowadays it's a shortened season. Besides, how can you know if a modern player is going to last until he's 34 or 38 if he's only 33 now?

Can anybody come up with examples of "smalls" who were still significant contributors past their mid-30s other than the 2 notable exceptions I mentioned above? What do you guys think? Do smalls last like bigs?

bob

by **beat** Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:45 pm

Bob

Players whom rely on a particular "skill" like quickness or jumping ability and are somewhat reliant on those paricular traits will fall of quickly when that skill begins to fade.

Now Dr J for example could jump but later with the 76ers he lost several inches BUT he was skilled and smart enough to know what he could still do well and adjust to his changing physical ability.

I had a cousin that was a heck of a softball player and could hit the ball as far as anyone I've ever played with or against. Most of our fields had no fences so I could play as deep as I thought I needed to and he still cracked it over my head.
Well on to the next season and something happened. He was only a year older but the balls never flew off his bat the same again. He never did anything different but had "lost" most all of his power.

I have no idea why some players manage to go beyond to their late 30's to early 40's. Certainly the bigs have more stress on their legs and feet but then the smalls are physically smacked around a lot too.

Will be interesting to read the replies to this thread.

beat

by **Outside** Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:42 pm

I suggest using Player Season Finder on Basketball-Reference.com (http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi). Criteria I used were age and height. A nice thing about the search results is the WS (win shares) column, which attempts to put a value on how well the player actually played. I'll let Sam analyze the merit of WS, but it's a stab at a meaningful stat.

When using the ages 35-46 and height up to 6-7, John Stockton dominates the list by taking four of the top eight slots, with Reggie Miller taking three of the top ten. Other notable small men other than Stockton, Miller, and the aforementioned Havlicek were Lenny Wilkins, Johnny Green, and Jason Kidd.

When I changed the criteria to age 40 or above, I was shocked. There are only three players on the list (Stockton, Cousy, and John Long), and only Stockton's season was productive (9.0 win shares vs. 0.1 for Cousy and Long). When I changed the criteria to 6-8 or taller and age 40 or above, there are 20 players on the list.

Another comparison - big men, age 36-46: 204 player-seasons. Small men, age 36-46: 146 player-seasons. When I upped the big man search to include 6-10 or taller, I still got 136 player seasons.

Some of this depends on how you define "big man." I arbitrarily categorized 6-7 and below as small men and 6-8 and above as big men. You could have your cutoff point someplace else and get different results.

There are statistical problems like Magic Johnson, who is 6-9 but is a guard and I assume in the small man category, but if you just consider height, he's a big man. If you group by position, guards are small men, centers and power forwards are big men, and small forwards are a problem. Havlicek played small forward but is a swing man who could also fill a guard spot and played more on the perimeter, and Bob identified him as a small man (and he's only 6-5). But where do you put James Worthy? I'd say big man, but you could disagree.

All interesting stuff. After fiddling with the Player Season Finder, I'd say big men wear better overall, but I'd say for the most part, it's lanky big men who wear the best. Kareem, Parish, and Mutumbo were all on the thin side.

A guy who shocks me is Shaq. I am stunned that he is still playing at 37. With his bulk, I figured the pounding on his joints would cause him to crumble by age 35. Whatever you think of him, he's a physical marvel. On the opposite end, Stockton was another marvel. Looking at the stats, it's clear he was more productive at an older age than any other small man.

Outside

by **bobheckler** Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:05 pm

Outside wrote:I suggest using Player Season Finder on Basketball-Reference.com (http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi). Criteria I used were age and height. A nice thing about the search results is the WS (win shares) column, which attempts to put a value on how well the player actually played. I'll let Sam analyze the merit of WS, but it's a stab at a meaningful stat.

When using the ages 35-46 and height up to 6-7, John Stockton dominates the list by taking four of the top eight slots, with Reggie Miller taking three of the top ten. Other notable small men other than Stockton, Miller, and the aforementioned Havlicek were Lenny Wilkins, Johnny Green, and Jason Kidd.

When I changed the criteria to age 40 or above, I was shocked. There are only three players on the list (Stockton, Cousy, and John Long), and only Stockton's season was productive (9.0 win shares vs. 0.1 for Cousy and Long). When I changed the criteria to 6-8 or taller and age 40 or above, there are 20 players on the list.

Another comparison - big men, age 36-46: 204 player-seasons. Small men, age 36-46: 146 player-seasons. When I upped the big man search to include 6-10 or taller, I still got 136 player seasons.

Some of this depends on how you define "big man." I arbitrarily categorized 6-7 and below as small men and 6-8 and above as big men. You could have your cutoff point someplace else and get different results.

There are statistical problems like Magic Johnson, who is 6-9 but is a guard and I assume in the small man category, but if you just consider height, he's a big man. If you group by position, guards are small men, centers and power forwards are big men, and small forwards are a problem. Havlicek played small forward but is a swing man who could also fill a guard spot and played more on the perimeter, and Bob identified him as a small man (and he's only 6-5). But where do you put James Worthy? I'd say big man, but you could disagree.

All interesting stuff. After fiddling with the Player Season Finder, I'd say big men wear better overall, but I'd say for the most part, it's lanky big men who wear the best. Kareem, Parish, and Mutumbo were all on the thin side.

A guy who shocks me is Shaq. I am stunned that he is still playing at 37. With his bulk, I figured the pounding on his joints would cause him to crumble by age 35. Whatever you think of him, he's a physical marvel. On the opposite end, Stockton was another marvel. Looking at the stats, it's clear he was more productive at an older age than any other small man.

Outside

outside,

When I started this thread, I was hoping I'd get the kind of high-quality, soundly-based reply you just provided.

Of course there are going to be "outliers". Magic's skills at point guard despite his height skews him, but Magic's career ended a lot early than it should have. It also started early too. Moses Malone came right out of high school and still played into his late 30s. Michael Jordan took some time off to play baseball, which probably extended his basketball career.

If anything, I'd say Shaq's longevity DESPITE his immense size, lends weight (no pun intended) to the inference that bigs last longer. They rely less on speed and hops and more on power and as long as they can maintain their power and not get pounded into weakness over the years by other big players, they can still play. Maybe they extend the range of their shot, so they're not getting hit underneath as much. A player whose game relies on speed and quickness can't afford to lose that because that's his bread and butter. Doesn't really matter if he uses his speed and quickness to penetrate, to pop open on a screen or fast break downcourt if he slows down he is less effective.

Thanks for that link. I use basketball-reference a lot and wasn't even aware of that page. Excellent source.

bob

by **babyskyhook** Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:42 pm

Bob-

It's funny, b/c when I first put that idea out there I was specifically thinking of guys like Kobe and MJ (who keep adapting their game as they lose athleticism) or Reggie and Ray Ray (who are such pure shooters and excellent in catch and shoot, so they don't rely on athleticism as much) vs a guy like Tim Duncan or Shaq- just thinking in terms of pounds per square inch stress that is on a big man's joints vs a small's joints. I was also thinking of how worn down TD looked the last two years in the playoffs and how much Shaq's game has tailed off over the last 5 years (although he certainly had a nice bounceback last year- in no small part due to his keeping his weight down for once).

But I didn't think of some of those lanky big men over the years- the point is a good one- since those guys didn't rely on speed or hops in their game but had less pounds/sq inch on their joints than someone like Shaq, guys like Kareem and Deke were able to play at a consistent level for many years.

It seems counterintuitive, since smalls are not taking as much of a pounding on their joints on a lbs/sq inch basis, but since bigs don't rely on their athleticism as much, they can actually have a greater athletic decline but still be more productive players.

I might have been wrong in the whole premise- at least as a blanket statement.

I do think guys like Kobe and MJ, who migrate their games to the post (Kobe is operating out of the post a huge amount of the time this year and he is deadly down there as most guards are not good post defenders), and shooters like Ray and Reggie, are exceptions to the rule, but it looks like I might have had the rule backwards! Embarassed

by **bobheckler** Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:02 pm

babyskyhook wrote:Bob-

It's funny, b/c when I first put that idea out there I was specifically thinking of guys like Kobe and MJ (who keep adapting their game as they lose athleticism) or Reggie and Ray Ray (who are such pure shooters and excellent in catch and shoot, so they don't rely on athleticism as much) vs a guy like Tim Duncan or Shaq- just thinking in terms of pounds per square inch stress that is on a big man's joints vs a small's joints. I was also thinking of how worn down TD looked the last two years in the playoffs and how much Shaq's game has tailed off over the last 5 years (although he certainly had a nice bounceback last year- in no small part due to his keeping his weight down for once).

But I didn't think of some of those lanky big men over the years- the point is a good one- since those guys didn't rely on speed or hops in their game but had less pounds/sq inch on their joints than someone like Shaq, guys like Kareem and Deke were able to play at a consistent level for many years.

It seems counterintuitive, since smalls are not taking as much of a pounding on their joints on a lbs/sq inch basis, but since bigs don't rely on their athleticism as much, they can actually have a greater athletic decline but still be more productive players.

I might have been wrong in the whole premise- at least as a blanket statement.

I do think guys like Kobe and MJ, who migrate their games to the post (Kobe is operating out of the post a huge amount of the time this year and he is deadly down there as most guards are not good post defenders), and shooters like Ray and Reggie, are exceptions to the rule, but it looks like I might have had the rule backwards!

babyskyhook,

Nevertheless, it was a very good philosophical point to discuss. As you say, one could think it counter-intuitive that dinosaurs like Shaq can keep on going well into middle-age (38-42 is middle age, unless you have high expectations of living to be 120) while low-contact, low-impact players don't.

I guess the pounding doesn't take as much of a toll on your body as quick changes of direction does on your knees.

The issue intrigued me because, as I stopped to think about it, I couldn't think of many smalls that I would consider to be "ancient", while I could come up with a number of bigs that did and I was wondering if my impression was anecdotal or could be substantiated.

bob

by **babyskyhook** Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:05 pm

I think besides the change of direction, most bigs are doing a lot of highflying dunks in transition. So as they lose their ability to elevate it doesn't matter so much.

by **bobheckler** Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:27 pm

babyskyhook wrote:I think besides the change of direction, most bigs are doing a lot of highflying dunks in transition. So as they lose their ability to elevate it doesn't matter so much.

bsh,

Good point. I don't think Shaq needs much elevation to reach the rim.

bob

by **Outside** Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:25 pm

Bob,

Thanks for the kind words. Topics like this one are the ones that interest me, and the quality discussions are what have drawn me to this group of posters.

Outside

by **bobheckler** Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:07 pm

Ok,

So, there have been 75 players in NBA history that started their career at age 19 or younger. Of those 75, 43 are still active, so we don't know when their careers will end. Many of them have been recent year draft picks, as more and more underclassmen declare themselves eligible for the NBA draft.

Of the 32 non-active players who started their careers as teenagers, ONLY ONE played past 36. Moses Malone.

Clearly, this must be taken with a grain of salt since advances of medical technology and techniques now enable players to keep playing well past what their predecessors would have been able to do. Furthermore, we don't know, without significantly more analysis, whether those players didn't make it past 36 because of injuries or because they weren't good enough. For every Kobe Bryant, who learned the pro game quickly and thoroughly and is still playing at a high quality after 14 seasons, there are 10 Bruno Sundov's and Bill Willoughby's, players who were done by their mid-20's.

Still, it says something about the current inclination to draft'em young and bring them along. At first blush, it's looking like they have the same length of career as players that get at least 3 years of college, they're just not as NBA-ready when they start as the older players who get 3-4 years in a good college program. So the fans aren't getting the best bang-for-the-buck.

bob.

by **Sam** Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:58 am

Bob (and others),

What effect, if any, on playing longevity has to do with elevated income per year? Will it be easier for those who started at age 19 to quit earlier because won't really matter to them whether they've earned $75 million or $95 million in their careers? Not that this really has anything to do with the subject of this thread because it's hard for me to believe that player height would have a bearing on greed.

Sam

by **bobheckler** Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:04 pm

Sam wrote:Bob (and others),

What effect, if any, on playing longevity has to do with elevated income per year? Will it be easier for those who started at age 19 to quit earlier because won't really matter to them whether they've earned $75 million or $95 million in their careers? Not that this really has anything to do with the subject of this thread because it's hard for me to believe that player height would have a bearing on greed.

Sam

sam,

There's no way to determine whether players "quit early" because they started early and were rich without an epic amount of research, if then.

My unsubstantiated opinion is that winning is its own best reward. Players who are at the top of their position and who are winning individual awards and championships will want to continue to play (even if it means fighting through injuries) past those who aren't and don't. It's not much fun being hurt AND losing. Even then, it's not always enough. Moses Malone quit the San Antonio Spurs in 1994 at age 38 after playing in 149 minutes in 17 games. That's less than 10 minutes/game for a proud old warrior. Not even ending up with a 62-20 record and making it to the Western Conference Finals could make him want to keep going at that point.

As an aside, Doc Rivers was his teammate on that 1994 Spurs team.

bob

by **bobheckler** Tue Jul 13, 2010 11:31 am

TJ,

Here's that thread I referred to.

Now that Derek Fisher has ascended to these heights, it's relevant (sorta, kinda, maybe).

bob

.

by **tjmakz** Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:13 pm

In your original post you used the age of 40. That is a very, very high number for an NBA player.
33 is the age when you see players numbers drop off dramatically and 37 is a real old NBA player, especially for a guard.

Steve Nash is 36 1/2. In a couple of years, he will be in your list of really old players who play on a high level.

by **MDCelticsFan** Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:01 pm

Didn't Lenny Wilkens (under 6'5'' guard) play well into his late 30's-even as a plyer coach with the Hawks and in the same capacity with the Sonics? Walt Frazier played into his mid-late 30's when he finished up with the Cavs, I think in '79 also. Am I correct on Clyde?

by **bobheckler** Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:27 pm

MDCelticsFan wrote: Didn't Lenny Wilkens (under 6'5'' guard) play well into his late 30's-even as a plyer coach with the Hawks and in the same capacity with the Sonics? Walt Frazier played into his mid-late 30's when he finished up with the Cavs, I think in '79 also. Am I correct on Clyde?

MD,

Frazier played until he was 34, which is younger than what we're discussing. Furthermore, in his 34th year, he only played 27 minutes in 3 games and only shot 36%. In his 33rd year, he played 12 games and shot 44%. His career fg% was 49%.

Lenny Wilkens played until he was 37. He played 65 games that year (so, pretty much a full season) and shot 43% (which was actually his career fg% too). His fga, though, were way down and he only averaged 6.5ppg that year instead of the 16.5 he averaged career. The year before that, his 36th year, he did well.

bob

.

by **MDCelticsFan** Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:48 pm

Unfortunately, if the subject refers to Biggie Smalls (Notorious B.I.G.) he only lasted until he was 24! Thug life will do that to ya'!-MD.

by **Matty** Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:50 pm

its threads like this that make one realize this the wisdom and basketball smarts our little gang has spread around its membership.

just the musings of diffrent posters brings out in others so much deep thinking..

this is like the basketball equizelent of being in greeze and standing around listing to socrates and plato..

by **bobc33** Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:31 pm

Matty wrote:its threads like this that make one realize this the wisdom and basketball smarts our little gang has spread around its membership.

just the musings of diffrent posters brings out in others so much deep thinking..

this is like the basketball equizelent of being in greeze and standing around listing to socrates and plato..

Well said Matty and I agree.

by **bobheckler** Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:00 pm

btw, if you notice, the very well-considered and written 3rd post on this thread was by Outside.

Outside, if you're lurking and reading this, the war's over. It's time to come home.

bob

.

by **Sam** Tue Jul 13, 2010 11:35 pm

I noticed and am delighted. Welcome back, Outside.

Sam

by **Outside** Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:19 am

Actually, the post Bob mentioned is from last November that's showing up because Bob bumped the thread, but I appreciate the thought. I agree with Matty's sentiment that this is the kind of thread that I really enjoy -- a well-considered topic started by one person based on a suggestion by another and added to by numerous others. A quality conversation that is all too rare in the wilds of the internet.

Outside

by Sponsored content

Do Smalls wear better than Bigs?

Do Smalls wear better than Bigs?

Re: Do Smalls wear better than Bigs?

Re: Do Smalls wear better than Bigs?

Re: Do Smalls wear better than Bigs?

Re: Do Smalls wear better than Bigs?

Re: Do Smalls wear better than Bigs?

Re: Do Smalls wear better than Bigs?

Re: Do Smalls wear better than Bigs?

Re: Do Smalls wear better than Bigs?

Re: Do Smalls wear better than Bigs?

Re: Do Smalls wear better than Bigs?

Re: Do Smalls wear better than Bigs?

Re: Do Smalls wear better than Bigs?

Re: Do Smalls wear better than Bigs?

Re: Do Smalls wear better than Bigs?

Re: Do Smalls wear better than Bigs?

Re: Do Smalls wear better than Bigs?

Re: Do Smalls wear better than Bigs?

Re: Do Smalls wear better than Bigs?

Re: Do Smalls wear better than Bigs?

Re: Do Smalls wear better than Bigs?

Re: Do Smalls wear better than Bigs?

Re: Do Smalls wear better than Bigs?