Experienced versus good. I will have to give that one some thought. They are often used together but I can't think of someone being described as experienced that wasn't good.
I think there are experienced officials who are happy where they are so they can have sloppy mechanics. However, I think an official must have strong mechanics in order to move up in today's game. So the mechanics don't really make or break an "experienced" official.
At some point in time an official would have probably been physically capable to gain credibility. So an "experienced" official may or may not be able to run like a deer.
Rules knowledge is important but it isn't the end all be all to officiating bliss. I personally know of one example of this.
Communication, while important, will not hold someone back if they are just that good uh I mean "experienced." There are certain officials that have reached the top of college officiating while remaining less than approachable on the court.
I think an experienced official is like a Lexus, so many things working so well together. Thinking then reacting, reacting then thinking, new rules, applications of rules, go top-side, step down, illegal screen, #34 has four fouls, TV time out on the next dead ball, block, charge, chucking the cutter, double the line, accelerated rotation, team B is playing a zone, the shot clock didn't reset, let my partner get in the game, good crew call, answer the coach, warn the coach, T the coach or make the coach laugh, walk into the play, we're in the bonus, foot on the line, in the act of shooting, traveling, hold in the post, my partner is in the tank, get the shooter, secondary defender, team A is fouling, game over. Work of art.
Putting all of that together with a crew in sync takes experience. It seems like being a good official will go hand in hand with this also.