How much experience is needed to win a championship?

I was curious about the age of our young team relative to other championship teams, including the tenure with that specific team of their stars when a championship was won.  No, I didn't say we were champions.  Just more mind numbing speculation of the summer months.  However, if we are moving into the "Championship Contention Window", the CCW, within the next 3 seasons, then the numbers are at least, interesting.

I looked at only two simple numbers.  Firstly, what is the average experience in years of the starting five (Career average).  Secondly, what is their tenure, in years with the championship team (Team average)?  Right off the bat this makes for a little confusion as the starting five aren't always exceedingly clear cut.  In some of these cases I used the main five guys, or the five playing the bulk of the minutes, or the five that got the bulk of the playoff time.  Probably a mistake or two factored in as well.

So, fire up the wayback machine for a recap of champions back to the mid-90's, which is approximately when my eye's glazed over looking at stat sheets. 

Year Team, Career avg, Team avg, Notes

2008 Celtics,  8    3.6    - The next Pistons or Heat?  Or dynasty?

2007 Spurs,  8.6    5.2   - Another year or two left in these "old timers"I think.

2006 Heat,  6.6     1.4  - I completely forgot The Glove was on this team.

2005 Spurs,  6.2     4.2  - Duncan is a stud.

2004 Pistons,  6.2     2  - Burn hot, burn quick...and beat up a Shaq-less Kobe. Edit: Shaq probably wants to forget he was on this team too.

2003 Spurs,  6.2    5.2  -  An elder Admiral skews this relatively young team.

2002 Lakers, 8.6     5.8  -  Robert Horry equals success!

2001 Lakers,  8.6     4  -  Rick Fox becomes a household name.

2000 Lakers,  10.4    2.4  -  Phil doesn't need Jordan to win (merely Shaq & Kobe)

1999 Spurs,  9.4     4.6  -  Duncan was a stud right out of the box.

1998 Bulls,  10.6     7.8  -  Jordan retires again, sets course for future Favre.

1997 Bulls,  9.6     6.8  -  Jordan's stomach virus series.

1996 Bulls,  8.6     5.8  -  Remember when Shawn Kemp was really, really good?

Edit: Added these young teams.  Factored into the averages below.

1991 Bulls,  7    4.8     Remember Bill Cartwright's freethrows?

1981 Celtics,   4.6     2.6   -   Rookie McHale, Soph Bird

1980 Lakers,   5.6    2.6   -  Rookie Magic

1977 Blazers,   3     2.6  -  !!!!!!!

Average career experience for all these teams is 7.5 years.

Average team experience for all teams is 4.2 years.

So what does any of this mean?  The numbers for our current Blazers, for the 2009 season will look like this (Oden, LMA, Roy, Webster, Blake)

2009 Blazers, 3.2     2.6

A very young team, as if you didn't know.  There are a few teams in recent history with low team experience averages, and the Heat and Pistons stand out.  In both instances, the career averages are high, and if you were to look at a 12 or 15 man roster average they would probably be even higher, particularly in the case of the Heat with it's veteran heavy bench.  Interestingly, both teams with the lowest team experience numbers are one-and-done's. 

Now project the Blazers out 2 more years, to the 2011 season and assume a starting lineup of Oden, LMA, Roy, Webster and Bayless (Rex if for no other reason than to make this next set of numbers look really cool).

2011 Blazers,  4.4     4..4

At least in recent history, no other team comes close to being this young in terms of career experience, and possibly more notably, it is all "home grown" experience.  This also puts us squarely in the middle of the pack for team experience and way, way low on the career experience end, but there aren't any 14 year Shaqs to skew the number higher either.

I started to list values of the "Big 3" or "Big 2" of championship teams also, but this didn't seem to have much value, e.g. averaging an old Shaq and a young D-Wade gives you two experienced players in their prime.  Or what does 10 years on a team for Paul Pierce and 1 year for Garnett mean?  I dunno. 

So does this team's CCW begin in 3 years?  Is this team really that unique to contend with young guys that are playing for the team that drafted them (not to mention a couple more at the fifth and sixth options)?  How many years are we an effective contender with the same core?  Even the teams that you would call perrennial contenders over an extended period have some changeup in some key role players from year to year while retaining their stars, e.g. Bulls '91-98, Spurs '99-07, '80-88 Lakers.

It's all speculation right now, but it's July, and that's what we do in July.

And hey, it's my first Fanpost, too!