↓ Login/Logout ↓
Schedule/Results
↓ Roster ↓
Salaries
↓ Archives ↓
↓ About ↓

Pistons are younger than they’ve been in years – but that’s not saying much

The Pistons are the 17th-oldest team in the NBA this season, adjusted for minutes played. Given how bad they are, I wish the Pistons were a little younger, but at least they’re younger than average.

For a Detroit team that is typically one of the league’s oldest, it’s progress.

The Pistons haven’t ranked lower on the oldest-team list since 1996, when they finished 21st. They also ranked 17th in 2001.

9 Comments

  • Jan 11, 20122:04 pm
    by Max

    Reply

    I don’t like the, “when adjusted for minutes played”, combined with the Pistons are the X# youngest team this season, because it doesn’t allow for the games so far played being such a small sample size.  Ben Wallace is obviously dragging them way down using that math and and by average age on roster, they would finish much younger.

    • Jan 11, 20122:27 pm
      by labatts

      Reply

      Prince skews it more than Wallace simply because he plays more.  But, how else would you do it?  I don’t think accounting for Villanueva and Macklin makes much sense because they don’t play.

    • Jan 11, 20123:27 pm
      by Dan Feldman

      Reply

      Without adjusting for minutes played, the Pistons rank as the NBA’s 13th-oldest team.

  • Jan 11, 20122:13 pm
    by Levi Thieman

    Reply

    does anyone else think macklin earned some pre-4th quarter mintes last night. he was more effective than ben wallace. maybe on back to back they split that 4th big man role. one night wallace one night macklin? thoughts?

    • Jan 11, 20122:39 pm
      by Patrick Hayes

      Reply

      Maybe. That was the first time in those garbage time minutes that he’s done much so far though. But if Wallace needs rest, Villanueva continues to battle that mysterious injury and Maxiell continues to play as bad as he did the last two games, it’s conceivable Macklin could get an early look soon.

  • Jan 11, 20122:43 pm
    by frankie d

    Reply

    i thought i heard blaha state that the team was the 10th oldest team in the league last night.
    maybe he did not adjust it according to minutes played, but it still matters.  if they are that old – 10th oldest – it simply means that they have a bunch of old guys taking up roster space that should be devoted to younger players.
    that is, if this is really, truly a rebuilding period.

    • Jan 11, 20122:51 pm
      by Patrick Hayes

      Reply

      I thought they were just retooling while remaining competitive?

      • Jan 11, 20123:10 pm
        by frankie d

        Reply

        lololol!
        that’s a joke…right?

  • Jan 12, 20121:08 am
    by Laser

    Reply

    1) The fact that you look at their age, determine that they’re younger than they’ve been in recent history (you know, like, when they were a contending team of veterans) and call it “progress” of any kind is infuriating. Look for all the silver linings you want, but this is not one of them. When you swap all your best veteran players for younger, awful players who can’t win games and are unwatchable, you get younger. That’s not progress by anybody’s standards. Jesus.
     
    2) This team is basically just average in terms of age. Average. Nothing more. I could give six shits if there’s one team between them and the DEAD CENTER EXACT league average, but that’s what they are.
     
    3) For the next two seasons, nothing about this team aside from actual on-court performance can be evaluated without considering the “dead money” we’re paying Rip. We may as well have a 50 year old veteran who can’t play and makes $5.5 mil annually for what he’s doing to our cap space/flexibility. It’s just a dumb chunk of money we owe a guy who should be on the team, would be if it wasn’t so badly mismanaged, and will have roughly as productive a season as the average guard on our squad.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your Ad Here