(Editor's note: Many thanks to R983 for once again taking the time to put together an update to the "Bridging the Roster Talent Gap" series! We've moved this edition up to the front page for visibility. Enjoy!)
This is a follow-up to my Bridging the Talent Gap Part 2.5 article, which can be found at this link.
I wanted to compare the ages of the "big 4" players from that article, to see how different teams compare to each other in future potential and likely growth/progression. I also wanted to see if the Bucks really are a young team.
I don't think there's really a need to say much more, since this is a pretty simple concept, not much detail involved in this one, so here it is:
This is the color code key I will be using for player ages. Blue teams are Babies, Green teams are Young, Yellow teams are Younger-Prime, Orange teams are Older-Prime, and Red teams are Aging.
If you have a Baby team, you shouldn't be worried about winning whatsoever. If you have a Young team, you're probably stuck in the middle of winning and losing, but should be trending upward. If you have a Young-Prime team, you should be trending upward and seeing clear growth and potential to be a conference contender. If you're an Older-Prime team, you should be contending for your conference title and a spot in the Finals, because your window is shrinking. If you're an Aging team, you should consider blowing it up unless you are actively competing for a title.
These are the same players from the Bridging the Talent Gap 2.5 article, with their ages averaged:
Observations:
- The Bucks are a Young team. In fact, when comparing the top 4 players, there are only 5 teams (Nuggets, Pacers, Suns, Lakers, Bulls) younger than Milwaukee and another 2 (Mavs, Hawks) that are the same age.
- However, despite currently being in the Young group, the Bucks have nothing in the way of non-top 4 young players with significant potential on the roster or good draft picks, so we are going to age quickly compared to most teams. We need to find the winning formula quickly, whether it is by trade or by.....hoping our current roster just improves a bunch?
- If your team isn't good and also isn't young, you're in deep trouble. For instance, the Kings and Nets might be in serious trouble.
- The Grizzlies probably have the worst outlook of anyone, unless they can trade Conley for some goods. They have Tons of long-term money invested into an Aging team that is also tanking...that's not generally an effective strategy. However, it could potentially lead to a quick turnaround next year if their rookie is good. Things don't look good for the Spurs either, who are stuck right in a really bad middle spot.
- The Celtics and Nuggets are in extremely enviable positions, though the Bucks aren't too terribly far behind. The Celtics have the additional future assets though, which really sets them apart (and being a top 2 seed already doesn't hurt).
Observations:
- Biggest Movers: Nuggets (Millsap), 76ers (Redick), and Kings (Randolph): that's bad news for teams that have to compete with the Nuggets and 76ers.
- Other big movers: Celtics (Horford), Spurs (Pau), Wizards (Gortat), Pacers (Collison), and Knicks (Lee): that's further bad news for Bucks fans, because we have to play the 76ers, Celtics, Wizards, and Pacers a lot, and they're set up for success even when losing their oldest top 4 player.
- The Nets are really screwed, since they don't even have their own pick to replenish with. They better hope they can keep finding gems like Dinwiddie and making bold trades.
- Does this mean a lot? Not really, because if you removed these oldest players, teams would disproportionately regress. However, I thought it was interesting.
Let me know what you think!