Debunking the myth of the "Second-Youngest Team"

by Majikj0n on Nov 30, 2008 9:12 PM PST Comment 22 comments

It's been all over the media this year. Golden State is fielding a younger team than Portland, so we're only the "second-youngest team" this year.

Well, that may have been true on opening day, when some reporter who was so inclined decided to do the math and check it out. However, there is a problem with that.

This is a skewed number, due to people on both rosters who don't actually PLAY in any games. Raef brings our average age up quite a bit, but he's out for the year with an injury. Can this guy seriously be counted as a factor for our average age when he's likely never to even suit up again in a Blazers uniform?

So, as a courtesy, I've charted the average ages of the top-10 minute getters in the season so far for both teams (using Jamal Crawford's minutes with the Knicks as a part of this so as not to skew the result).

Ages listed are in days, as of Dec 1. The numbers are as follows. For the Blazers, we have:

Brandon Roy.......07/23/84 = 8897
LaMarcus Aldridge.07/19/85 = 8536
Greg Oden.........01/22/88 = 7619
Sergio Rodriguez..06/12/86 = 8208
Steve Blake.......02/26/80 = 10506
Joel Przybilla....10/10/79 = 10645
Rudy Fernandez....04/04/85 = 8642
Nicolas Batum.....12/14/88 = 7292
Travis Outlaw.....09/18/84 = 8840
Channing Frye.....05/17/83 = 9330

For a total of 88515 days, or 8851.5 days old per player, which is about 24.25 years old on average.

For the Warrirors:

Kelenna Azubuike.12/16/83 = 9117
Andris Biedrins..04/02/86 = 8279
Jamal Crawford...03/20/80 = 10483
Stephen Jackson..04/05/78 = 11198
Corey Maggette...11/12/79 = 10612
Anthony Morrow...09/27/85 = 8466
Anthony Randolph.07/15/89 = 7065
Ronny Turiaf.....01/13/83 = 9454
Brandan Wright...10/07/87 = 7726
CJ Watson........04/17/84 = 8994

For a total of 91394 days, or 9139.4 days old per player, which is almost exactly 25 years old on average.

So, as we can see, the Blazers average about 9 months YOUNGER than the warriors, if you count only the players who see minutes.

This will change slightly, once we get Martell back from injury, and Golden State gets Ellis back from his injury, also, but since Martell is over a year younger than Ellis, it will only increase the disparity.

0 recs | Comment 22 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Nice catch

by Eventine on Nov 30, 2008 9:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

enjoyin' the stats Majik

Thank you for bringing this up. I’d like now to see the national media begin correcting themselves when they get around to discussing this subject. I expect it’ll be discussed if we make the playoffs.

Astounding success we are enjoying for such a young team.

"I would be in favor of trading LMA and Oden for a reliable starting PF at this point."

MT Suit, 11/25/08

by MT Suit on Nov 30, 2008 9:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

They're not incorrect technically

but they count Raef since he is still on our roster of 15 players. Obviously, if you weighted it by minutes played, our team would be the youngest.

by Bust a Bucket on Nov 30, 2008 9:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, our team that actually plays is the younger than GS

but you have to count everyone on the Roster (including Raef and Ike and Shave) to get the number that is cited.

by Bust a Bucket on Nov 30, 2008 9:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Raef, though

is one of the most likely to get traded by the end of the year, the vetran we would get would likely be yonger than him

by raging WebTed on Nov 30, 2008 9:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Does it really matter if we are the youngest or 2nd youngest?

I don’t see any awards being handed out for any such category. Now if we can say that we are the youngest team to ever win a title, that would be something to brag about.

I'm a little confused by your tactics

by oderiferous emanations 74 on Nov 30, 2008 9:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Matter?

I dunno if it “matters” in the sense that anything in basketball “matters”, short of winning a championship.

But to hear the media prattle on about the Blazers being the “second-youngest” team all the time, is just nonsense. If they must bring up the age factor, they shouldn’t be misleading about it.

To me, being able to say we just beat Detroit on the road, have the second-best record in the western conference, and the 5th best record in the league overall, while fielding the youngest group of players to see action on the court, says a lot more about what we are actually accomplishing than to have to preface it with “second-youngest”—like the rookies riding the pine in Golden State or the Vets riding the pine in Portland have any impact on either team’s accomplishments.

Write-in Rudy for All-Star 2009!

by Majikj0n on Nov 30, 2008 9:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Other than possible bragging rights...

… is there any difference between being the youngest and second youngest?

The pertinent point is that the Blazers are one of the youngest teams in the league. Last season we were the youngest and this season we’ve been bumped from that spot. But so what. The Warriors are not the team with 4 rookies, three of which are seeing significant minutes. They also don’t have the record we do. So, whether we are fielding the youngest team or the youngest rotation doesn’t really matter. What matters is we remember that we are a young team and have patience.

Of course thanks to Majik, if bragging rights are important to you, he’s just given you the ammo you need.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Dec 1, 2008 9:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The Blazers are the youngest team to win a title

In 77’

by Sabonis4Ever on Nov 30, 2008 11:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Until this year....

The most amazing thing about my amazing ego is I have amazingly little about which to be egotistical.
The pick and roll this year will emphasize "roll" followed by "dunk", followed by the wailings and lamentations of your women.

by jscot on Dec 1, 2008 1:49 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

+1

and as I recall, I put down 2008 – 2009 back during the discussion on when folks thought Portland would win their first title since 77.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Dec 1, 2008 9:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

the best way to do it is...

… to weight it by playing time. I’m too lazy to do this.

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on Nov 30, 2008 9:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Me too. Took me long enough just to calculate the ages.

However, given the disparity listed in the minutes above, and the extremely minor impact that limited minutes that players 11-15 on either team are likely to make on the end result, I would wager that Portland would still be youngest if this were done.

Write-in Rudy for All-Star 2009!

by Majikj0n on Nov 30, 2008 9:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

or by weight

__Yes this is my passport photo__
+
Rudyculize: The act of Rudy making others look slow, dim and generally oafish.
=
http://www.myspace.com/y5k

by Y5k on Dec 1, 2008 8:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

it affects press coverage

i still remember the hype given the univ. of michigan “fab five” — all 5 starters were freshmen and they made it through the ncaa tournament to the title game. this was when chris webber first came on stage.

people love “youth” as a marketing ploy. one sees it all the time in the arts.

ignacio

by ignacio on Nov 30, 2008 10:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

also average age isn't really very meaningful.. median might be better

or How about these..

2 of our starters are under 21
4 of our starters are under 25
over half of our full roster is under 25
only ONE member of this team is over 30 and he is referred to by a four letter acronym
By the time we enter the playoffs.. something will have to be made about these numbers and the numbers of rookies we are rocking.. could be some kind of record

Boycott Rose Garden Concessions!!!
http://www.blazersedge.com/2008/11/8/657044/boycotting-rose-garden-con

by idoltime on Nov 30, 2008 10:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I agree

We are definitely the youngest team based on who actually plays. We have about 12 or 13 years of experience in our starting lineup. Shaq, for example, has 15 years.

and Majikj0n, nice futurama image

"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"

by Magnum on Nov 30, 2008 10:56 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Well done ... and nice math skils.

__Yes this is my passport photo__
+
Rudyculize: The act of Rudy making others look slow, dim and generally oafish.
=
http://www.myspace.com/y5k

by Y5k on Dec 1, 2008 8:33 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Did you catch the starting lineups player intro screen before the Detroit game?

Portland:
Steve Blake, 5 years (our veteran)
Brandon Roy, 2 years
Nicolas Batum, rookie
LaMarcus Aldridge, 2 years
Greg Oden, rookie

Detroit:
Allen Iverson, 12 years
Rip Hamilton, 9 years
Tayshaun Prince, 6 years
Rasheed Wallace, 13 years (their veteran)
Kwame Brown, 7 years

Apart from the fact that a team has some issues if Kwame starts for it, they had 47 years of NBA experience on the floor and we had 9 plus a few games for Greg and Nic. Pretty impressive contrast.

by Norsktroll on Dec 1, 2008 9:06 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Who says one cannot see the future?

We saw it yesterday afternoon.

And last Friday night.

And the Wednesday night before that.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Dec 1, 2008 9:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If I wasn't a Blazer fan

I would be jealous and angry.

We’re setting up a team that can repel any “Jordan” of the day… any Kobe, Wade, Lebron, etc. We got one of the premiere closers in the game, and he’s a 3rd year player still improving. As much outside shooting as one could hope for. A Spanish sensation playing for a million a year. A backup center worthy of starting on most teams in the NBA. Zero selfish players. Richest owner in sports. Great front office that has done this turnaround themselves with only one real lucky break (Oden). Cap space.

And they are extremely young to boot.

Who can match what we got cookin’? Who can even HOPE to match it? Even if some currently poor team gets whoever the future ‘Jordan’ of the day is and Lebron and Bosh go to NY, we got the perfect combination of talent and front office wizardry to combat ANYTHING.

We are extremely lucky to be Blazer fans.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Dec 1, 2008 1:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm jealous and angry anyways.

And will remain that way until ESPN covers nothing but the Portland Trailblazers. It’s a good thing I like being jealous and angry. :p

Poor grammar is poor communication.
Poor communication causes misunderstanding.
Misunderstanding causes fighting.
Fighting causes war.
War causes death.
Therefore, your poor grammar may just kill us all.

(One of Two Official Blazer's Edge Poets Laureate for the 2008-2009 Season)

by T Darkstar on Dec 1, 2008 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs