It’s hard to think we wouldn’t be better off just playing Sims if we’re looking for a low usage rebounding type and repurposing Hart’s money somewhere else.

I really just wanted them to let Sims be Mitch’s backup and use Hart’s money elsewhere.

NBA minutes are all equal once you get to an 8000 minute sample. Pelton is talking about 500 mins of teenage minutes not being the same as 500 mins of older rookies. But I’m talking about 8000 minutes of large sample size being more indicative of a player’s likelihood to break out than their amount of elapsed time since their birth is.

Respectfully disagree with respect to teenagers. Yes 8000 minutes is normally enough data to get a very good understanding of a player’s development. That I agree with. However in the data I studied, very young players were the exception to the rule. I don’t remember the cutoff, but 6000 of those are ages 19-21.

Unfortunately I don’t have an active database I can fire up. But if I just eyeball a few players that had a a ton of minutes before 22. KG
TS% from 19-22: 52.1
TS% from 23-30: 55.1

Jayson Tatum’s TS% jumps up like 20-30 points after his age 22 season. Carmelo’s goes up like 20% as well.

It doesn’t mean I think RJ will breakout. And I’m not saying he’s in the class of those players. I’m just trying to convey what the data I analyzed said. Last I checked, on average teenagers were more likely to improve in efficiency than other players.

NBA minutes are all equal once you get to an 8000 minute sample. Pelton is talking about 500 mins of teenage minutes not being the same as 500 mins of older rookies. But I’m talking about 8000 minutes of large sample size being more indicative of a player’s likelihood to break out than their amount of elapsed time since their birth is.

Ingram is a good exhibit to present. DeRozan is too. But my general premise is that if after 8000 minutes you are banking on someone being an exception to a rule, you are probably going to be disappointed.

How are those minutes categorically different

Because they’re played by a physically and emotionally immature teenager.

Not all NBA minutes are equal, but “garbage time” only amounts for maybe 100 minutes a year. Of the 8000 minutes Barrett has played, the sample is true: it’s against the best players in the world like all other 8000 minute samples one can put together. So I don’t really understand the Pelton argument as paraphrased above.

In all the studies I’ve done, there is no statistical difference between garbage minutes and non-garbage minutes. None. Players that get scant playing time (few minutes per game) perform the same per-minute statistically when their playing time increases. Actually the one thing I did find is that per-minute fouls decreases, so oddly they got better.

I feel that it is the same. It is against the same competition. How are those minutes categorically different?

It is true that most players take time to grow when they enter the league. Even many of the all-time great players struggled early on. But most players that turned out to be the least bit memorable to the league showed quantifiable improvement from minutes 2000-8000, regardless of their age.

That’s very Ward Cleaver of you to say, but is there any real NBA veracity to it? I’m curious what the actual data is on calendar age vs experience age. Has there been a study on it? From my experience of watching the league for 35 years and reading this blog for 15 years, my feeling is that minutes played on a court is a much more important indicator of development potential than trips around the sun are. We’ve had A LOT of teenagers come through the league now and the guys that are going to be good tend to show that early on.

Yes. I studied this years ago. Per minute stats for teenagers aren’t as valid as ones accrued in latter ages. I don’t remember the exact cut-off for age, but I do recall that shooting stats are more likely to improve from teenager years than other per-minute stats. Can’t find the study though…