How much athleticism does a player usually lose?

[sundizz]

NBA Athleticism = speed + explosive power + strength + agility + vertical + endurance.

18-21: 85% of max
22-27: 100%
28-32: 80%
33-36: 60%

Sound about right?

[JohnnySic]

Looks about right.

[JimmyMcAdocious]

Looks about right.

[ClipperRevival]

To be more specific. I would say:

28-30 - 90%
31-32 - 80%

And after 33, it really depends on the player. Some fall off rather fast while others hold up better. The fact that MJ was far and away the best in the world from 33-35 gets overlooked.

[LoneyROY7]

Hmmm....

Looks about right.

[GIF REACTION]

Hmm just sit right there OP let me crunch some numbers on the calculator

Yep

Looks about right.

[Richie2k6]

Yeah pretty much looks about right..

[rmt]

I don't think it's just a loss of athleticism but a loss in recovery time between games. Manu has said that the youngsters go so fast and when they hit you, it's so jarring (on the old bones). There's also the natural loss in energy as you age.

[chocolatethunder]

NBA Athleticism = speed + explosive power + strength + agility + vertical + endurance.

18-21: 85% of max
22-27: 100%
28-32: 80%
33-36: 60%

Sound about right?
I would disagree with this and say the drop is a lot less. More like you are at 95% then 100% and back down to 95%. I have seen research written about this very subject but how it applies to distance running (which of course is quite different). If you were using max vert and lane agility and other measurable a as your baseline, you would find that the difference in all of those numbers wouldn't be great. What I mean that if someone had a 40" vert at 27 it will not decrease to 32" at age 32 and then 24" by 36. You can see this in sprinting. Athletes lose very little but that very little (2-5%) is what separates them from the rest (of other professionals not normal people). I used max vert just because I can use a nice round number. You can use any of the numbers and they will all be relatively the same. It seems unbelievable but a 2-5% loss or gain in athleticism is huge actually. This is why athletes yes PEDs. They don't get a 20% gain, they get an extra 2% or 5% but when you are already extremely well trained and on an elite level, those extra 2-5 %age points make a huge difference.

[sundizz]

I would disagree with this and say the drop is a lot less. More like you are at 95% then 100% and back down to 95%. I have seen research written about this very subject but how it applies to distance running (which of course is quite different). If you were using max vert and lane agility and other measurable a as your baseline, you would find that the difference in all of those numbers wouldn't be great. What I mean that if someone had a 40" vert at 27 it will not decrease to 32" at age 32 and then 24" by 36. You can see this in sprinting. Athletes lose very little but that very little (2-5%) is what separates them from the rest (of other professionals not normal people). I used max vert just because I can use a nice round number. You can use any of the numbers and they will all be relatively the same. It seems unbelievable but a 2-5% loss or gain in athleticism is huge actually. This is why athletes yes PEDs. They don't get a 20% gain, they get an extra 2% or 5% but when you are already extremely well trained and on an elite level, those extra 2-5 %age points make a huge difference.

That is what I also initially thought/think too.

However, those are averages rather than individual games. It is why Timmy can (over the course of a season) be 40% less athletic, but still be about 90% for one particular game.

Age dimishes the ability to repeatedly do athletic stuff, rather than the capacity for a peak level flash of brilliance. Same reason Kobe and Bron still have some spectacular dunks...but their average dunk is less amazing.

[ClipperRevival]

I would disagree with this and say the drop is a lot less. More like you are at 95% then 100% and back down to 95%. I have seen research written about this very subject but how it applies to distance running (which of course is quite different). If you were using max vert and lane agility and other measurable a as your baseline, you would find that the difference in all of those numbers wouldn't be great. What I mean that if someone had a 40" vert at 27 it will not decrease to 32" at age 32 and then 24" by 36. You can see this in sprinting. Athletes lose very little but that very little (2-5%) is what separates them from the rest (of other professionals not normal people). I used max vert just because I can use a nice round number. You can use any of the numbers and they will all be relatively the same. It seems unbelievable but a 2-5% loss or gain in athleticism is huge actually. This is why athletes yes PEDs. They don't get a 20% gain, they get an extra 2% or 5% but when you are already extremely well trained and on an elite level, those extra 2-5 %age points make a huge difference.

Disagree. Max vertical is a terrible way to measure loss in athleticism. Even old Kobe can get up for that one jump (he's had a couple of monster dunks the last few years) and Vince Carter last year had a prime looking dunk over Gobert. Old guys can get up pretty high for that one jump. It's more about being able to continually explode and not losing anything throughout the game and further, throughout a season. It's also about stamina and not having your legs feels like jelly after running up and down the court. When you are young, you have more natural energy. When you are older, you have to conserve energy.

So to me, that also counts as athleticism.

[ClipperRevival]

That is what I also initially thought/think too.

However, those are averages rather than individual games. It is why Timmy can (over the course of a season) be 40% less athletic, but still be about 90% for one particular game.

Age dimishes the ability to repeatedly do athletic stuff, rather than the capacity for a peak level flash of brilliance. Same reason Kobe and Bron still have some spectacular dunks...but their average dunk is less amazing.

Exactly! Old guys can still give you a near peak vertical. It's what you do the rest of the game and throughout the season that gets affected. You just don't have the same bounce in your step after you turn 30. You lose a little something. And your bounce and stamina gradually decline after that.

[ClipperRevival]

I don't understand why so many people look at max vertical to measure athleticism. Most NBA players playing 1-3 can jump pretty darn high. But that doesn't really reflect how fluid, agile, lightness of feet, explosive, etc you are. A better measure is standing vertical. It's much harder to jump higher from a standstill and most explosive players do well in this test.

I think there should be a test for multiple jumps from a standstill position. And also how long it takes a player to get off those two jumps (maybe there is one already?). The guys who can quickly get off two jumps and can get high in the initial jump and get close to max height in the second jump would say a lot to me.

[PP34Deuce]

I believe it has to do with recovery time and maintaining that athletiscm.

Deion Sanders had said 3 years ago, he could still run sub 4.6 and could still get up high. He also said he couldn't give max stretch no more than 10 minutes.

[chocolatethunder]

Disagree. Max vertical is a terrible way to measure loss in athleticism. Even old Kobe can get up for that one jump (he's had a couple of monster dunks the last few years) and Vince Carter last year had a prime looking dunk over Gobert. Old guys can get up pretty high for that one jump. It's more about being able to continually explode and not losing anything throughout the game and further, throughout a season. It's also about stamina and not having your legs feels like jelly after running up and down the court. When you are young, you have more natural energy. When you are older, you have to conserve energy.

So to me, that also counts as athleticism.
Did you read the part where I said "I'm just using max vert to use a round number but it applies to everything"? You could use any of the measurables. Again, you can see this in sprinting or football or any other sport. Guys who run a 4.3 40 all of a sudden don't start running 5.6 40s. Use whatever measurement that you want. Again, PEDs will give you a small edge and at the elite level that is what you need to be better than the best of the best. These guys experience small drops in athleticism but that makes a huge difference. A 40% drop? No way. A 40% drop in athletiscm would put anyone out of the league.

You can have plenty of stamina a well into your 30s and 40s. Haile Gebrselassie was killing the WR in the marathon at almost 40.

[FKAri]

Different aspects of your "athleticism" change at different rates. Fast twitch muscle fibers, recovery times, endurance decline fairly early while strength stays with one longer.

Also mileage matters. "Micro" injuries can built up over a career that appear to age you faster.

[ClipperRevival]

Did you read the part where I said "I'm just using max vert to use a round number but it applies to everything"? You could use any of the measurables. Again, you can see this in sprinting or football or any other sport. Guys who run a 4.3 40 all of a sudden don't start running 5.6 40s. Use whatever measurement that you want. Again, PEDs will give you a small edge and at the elite level that is what you need to be better than the best of the best. These guys experience small drops in athleticism but that makes a huge difference. A 40% drop? No way. A 40% drop in athletiscm would put anyone out of the league.

You can have plenty of stamina a well into your 30s and 40s. Haile Gebrselassie was killing the WR in the marathon at almost 40.

Show me where I said a guy loses a drastic amount of athleticim at 31-32. Having 80% of the natural explosion and stamina from your peak age is reasonable if you ask me. Maybe it should be closer to 85%. I think we are agreeing but just had a misunderstanding.

But endurance sports can't be compared to a sport like basketball, where one must constantly plant and explode and change directions. That takes a lot more energy from your body than running in a straight line or bicycling. And that's exactly why 50 year old men can run marathons with no sweat.

[Asukal]

It doesn't fall that much. At age 30-33, it falls around 10-15%. Then 34+ would be about 15% and getting higher every year after. The thing is if you exert enough effort, you will find that your body can still jump and move fast. The problem is your body don't recover as fast as before and you start feeling pain more often so you will instinctively not play at your limit.

[chocolatethunder]

Show me where I said a guy loses a drastic amount of athleticim at 31-32. Having 80% of the natural explosion and stamina from your peak age is reasonable if you ask me. Maybe it should be closer to 85%. I think we are agreeing but just had a misunderstanding.

But endurance sports can't be compared to a sport like basketball, where one must constantly plant and explode and change directions. That takes a lot more energy from your body than running in a straight line or bicycling. And that's exactly why 50 year old men can run marathons with no sweat.
20% is a drastic amount. That would mean that if you were a 10 second 100m runner, that you would be running 12 seconds. That would take you from world class to a middle of the road high school sprinter. The difference between Lemairtre and Bolt (both have run under 10 seconds) is .34 seconds. That .34 seconds is the difference between world champ and an also ran. That's around 3%. That's huge. The drop off is in the single digits. The thing is that a drop off in the single digits can seem quite large especially when you are competing against the worlds best. No one is dropping off that much, they wouldn't be able to survive as a pro, they'd be out of the league. Even a 15% drop off is huge. We are agreeing but you're not realizing what a 15-20% drop off really means. Guys who are 15% less athletic than the average NBA player aren't going to be playing in the NBA. They won't even make the baseline level for an NBA player. The separation between the best and the worst NBA player isn't that much. You don't realize how something that seems so small as a 2-5% increase or decrease can have such a huge impact. Take anything that's easliy measurable and you'll find that a drop of maybe even 10% will make these players useless as a pro and most certainly 15%. You guys are just tossing these numbers around without realistically thinking what they mean when they are actually applied. Of course you have a peak athletically and you decline but the rate at which you decline is smaller than you think. It's just that those small numbers have a tremendous impact. I was using max vert because it's an easy thing that people always talk about. Like "wiggins has a 46" vert". But use no step vert (someone said to use no step vert I think). If a guy has a no step vert of 30" and it decreases by 20% then it would fall to 24". That is unrealistic. A 6" drop? Not likely. That inch or two can still have a tremendous impact on your play. Again I'm using this stuff because it's easily measurable but you can use anything you can measure.

[Quickening]

100 metre runners certainly don't lose much speed when they enter their late 20s, early 30s... but basketbal players seem to lose that quick first step in their late 20s, it's strange.

[chocolatethunder]

100 metre runners certainly don't lose much speed when they enter their late 20s, early 30s... but basketbal players seem to lose that quick first step in their late 20s, it's strange.
Well to be fair literally all of track and field is on drugs. Yes they lose that quick first step but it's a very small difference like I said 2-5%.

[eliteballer]

Everybody's different, both genetically and how they take care of their body.

You can argue guys like Wade and Nash were at their peak athletically around 30, whereas a guy like Vince Carter peaked in his early 20's.

[kshutts1]

Everyone is different, obviously, but how many of you are old enough to start losing your athleticism?

I'm 30, and the only real thing I've noticed in a huge increase in recovery time. I used to be able to play ball for 6-8 hours a day, plus lift, plus run two miles... every single day.

Now I play volleyball once a week and I'm sore the next day or two.
I drink too heavily one night? I feel it the next day or two.

Never had those issues in my early-to-mid twenties.

Relative to when I was in college...
Weight is the same
Running vert is still the same, give or take an inch
Stand still vert is less by about 2-3 inches
Speed? Unclear, as I don't really sprint. But my quickness remains

I dunno.. I still, very rarely, play basketball against college kids, and I still have an athletic advantage, just like I did 8-10 years ago. It was never a big gap, and it still is not. So maybe I'm one of the lucky few that didn't lose much... yet.

[Lebron23]

It depends if you are a player in the NBA or just a player in your Home town league.

NBA players played 90 or more games including the NBA playoffs. We only played 10-12 games in our league. We don't suffer from any wear and tear.

[ClipperRevival]

20% is a drastic amount. That would mean that if you were a 10 second 100m runner, that you would be running 12 seconds. That would take you from world class to a middle of the road high school sprinter. The difference between Lemairtre and Bolt (both have run under 10 seconds) is .34 seconds. That .34 seconds is the difference between world champ and an also ran. That's around 3%. That's huge. The drop off is in the single digits. The thing is that a drop off in the single digits can seem quite large especially when you are competing against the worlds best. No one is dropping off that much, they wouldn't be able to survive as a pro, they'd be out of the league. Even a 15% drop off is huge. We are agreeing but you're not realizing what a 15-20% drop off really means. Guys who are 15% less athletic than the average NBA player aren't going to be playing in the NBA. They won't even make the baseline level for an NBA player. The separation between the best and the worst NBA player isn't that much. You don't realize how something that seems so small as a 2-5% increase or decrease can have such a huge impact. Take anything that's easliy measurable and you'll find that a drop of maybe even 10% will make these players useless as a pro and most certainly 15%. You guys are just tossing these numbers around without realistically thinking what they mean when they are actually applied. Of course you have a peak athletically and you decline but the rate at which you decline is smaller than you think. It's just that those small numbers have a tremendous impact. I was using max vert because it's an easy thing that people always talk about. Like "wiggins has a 46" vert". But use no step vert (someone said to use no step vert I think). If a guy has a no step vert of 30" and it decreases by 20% then it would fall to 24". That is unrealistic. A 6" drop? Not likely. That inch or two can still have a tremendous impact on your play. Again I'm using this stuff because it's easily measurable but you can use anything you can measure.

I see your points. Now let me try to explain where I'm coming from.

Let's take Blake Griffin. When he first played in the league at 21, you can argue that he was at his peak athletically in terms of explosiveness off the ground from 21 to maybe 23. I think most players peak in their early 20's in terms of explosivness off the ground. That's why most slam dunk competitors compete in their early 20's. History proves this. Blake is 25 now, still supposedly in his physical prime. But living in LA and having watched about 90% of all of his pro games, I can say he's already lost a little from his early 20's days. Maybe 5% if you look at his movements the entire game. And like I said, I think players retain about 90% of their peak athleticism at 28-29. So expecting Blake to lose another 5% by 28-29 is realistic to me.

Again, let me clarify. Peak athleticism in terms of natural explosion off the ground usually occurs in your early 20's. And guys even lose a tad even when they reach their mid 20's. It might be very little but they do. Look at MJ when he first came into the league. His explosion was off the charts. Compare that MJ to 28-29 and I think saying he lost 10% isn't outlandish. Vince Carter won the slam dunk contest at 23.

Also, I don't think it's fair to compare sprint times to basketball because that time alone determines how good you are in that sport while in basketball, there are many more variables that determine success. I mentioned losing the bounce in your step and stamina decreasing as you age. Stamina isn't really a factor in sprinting.

[ClipperRevival]

Everyone is different, obviously, but how many of you are old enough to start losing your athleticism?

I'm 30, and the only real thing I've noticed in a huge increase in recovery time. I used to be able to play ball for 6-8 hours a day, plus lift, plus run two miles... every single day.

Now I play volleyball once a week and I'm sore the next day or two.
I drink too heavily one night? I feel it the next day or two.

Never had those issues in my early-to-mid twenties.

Relative to when I was in college...
Weight is the same
Running vert is still the same, give or take an inch
Stand still vert is less by about 2-3 inches
Speed? Unclear, as I don't really sprint. But my quickness remains

I dunno.. I still, very rarely, play basketball against college kids, and I still have an athletic advantage, just like I did 8-10 years ago. It was never a big gap, and it still is not. So maybe I'm one of the lucky few that didn't lose much... yet.

I am turning 39 in a few days so know first hand. Of course since I didn't lost my athleticism all at once, it's kind of hard to gauge how much i lost from my peak as it was a gradual decline that happened over the years. But I am much slower than I used to be. And the notiecable loss started around 32.

And I have been playing basketball since I was 15 so I know where I stand athletically. I used to be pretty quick and was able to blow by guys but not anymore. I can no longer blow by the youngsters I play against. They are quicker than me so I have to use skills to break them down. I get outrebounded by so many people, especialy from behind, which means I had inside position but they were able to leap over me. That seldom happened in my youth. And the stamina isn't there. When you are young, you can run up and down the court all day. Now, I have to exert energy more smartly.

If you gave me my peak athleticism to my current skills, I would be a pretty impactful player, even at a pretty high level imo. But it is what it is. I am almost 39 and have to deal with reality. But the beautiful thing about this game is if you work on your game, you get better.