Performance vs aging, has there been a paradign shift?

[dobrojim]

Astute as well as not so astute followers of sports have been aware for many
years that most athletes begin to decline by their early 30s and are often
forced by diminished performance to retire by around 35.

I don't know if it's the notoriety/fame of some of the older players
today in the NBA but I'm curious if that axiom still applies as broadly
as it once did. I'm thinking of guys like Duncan and KG.

Is it possible that modern training techniques, diet and the money
earned increasing the motivation of athletes to train consistently
has shifted this previously ironclad rule.

Or maybe it just seems like there are more older guys still playing well
than in the past.

[Induveca]

Modern medicine has certainly helped this immensely.

[BigA]

Interesting topic. Kareem and Parrish are examples of guys from an earlier era who performed at a high level into their late 30s.

[dobrojim]

^ true, although while still playing OK by some standards, Kareem especially,
was a shadow of the player he once was. But that was true by the time he
turned probably 30-32.

I'll also note that if there is a trend, it seems to favor bigs more than guards,
possibly because for them, skill and knowledge of how to play is somewhat
more important than absolute athleticism.

[Higga]

KG and Duncan are still playing well but neither are anywhere near as dominant as they used to be, so there is still a decline. The decline just isn't as sharp though, so athletes that were retiring at 34-35 can now push into playing into ages 38+.

Brains have a lot to do with it too. Duncan is so smart and fundamentally sound that he could probably play till he was 40 because he's never been a guy who only relied on being bigger/stronger/faster than everyone.

[montestewart]

Astute as well as not so astute followers of sports have been aware for many
years that most athletes begin to decline by their early 30s and are often
forced by diminished performance to retire by around 35.

I don't know if it's the notoriety/fame of some of the older players
today in the NBA but I'm curious if that axiom still applies as broadly
as it once did. I'm thinking of guys like Duncan and KG.

Is it possible that modern training techniques, diet and the money
earned increasing the motivation of athletes to train consistently
has shifted this previously ironclad rule.

Or maybe it just seems like there are more older guys still playing well
than in the past.

When I first encountered the "rule," it was Bill James talking about baseball players, and he seemed to be talking in approximate terms, with greater players sometimes peaking later, more often experiencing less dramatic declines after the peak, and occasionally have subsequent mini-peaks.

Jabbar was still a big contributor into his late 30s, and Chamberlain was as well the year he retired at 36. Stockton and Malone were still big contributors in their late 30s, and Bird, Magic, and MJ retired in their early to mid-30s primarily for reasons other than a decline in play (and both Magic and MJ had comebacks in their later 30s that showed they still had a least some of it). It seems like the greatest players always had the potential to be outliers regarding the "rule," and for the reasons you mentioned above, there may be a few more of them lasting a little longer.

Duncan, Garnett, Nowitzki (if he comes back healthy), Kobe, Nash, etc. are all defying expectations. I still think giving up assets to acquire a high-salary older veteran will continue to be a risk, but you may be right that because of improved conditioning, greater financial incentive to undertake such conditioning, and better medical care (except on the Wizards) the average rate of decline may have slowed a year or two, with a few more outliers among the greats. I'm sure someone out there is tracking all this on a spreadsheet.

[pancakes3]

Well, I think the difference is that now you don't have to be an all-time talent to have absurd longevity. Grant Hill has no business being in the league still yet here he is. A quick trip to Basketball-Reference shows that there are 20 guys in the league who are in their 15th+ season in the NBA ranging from the productive (Kobe, Duncan, Garnett...) to the not-so-productive (NazrMohammed, Kurt Thomas, Marcus Camby). 20 years ago in the 1992-1993 season there were only 5 (Mo Cheeks, James Edwards, Moses Malone, and Tree Rollins) and only Parish played meaningful minutes.

[Zonkerbl]

Well yea, if you look at number of seasons. Twenty years ago they all stayed in college for four years.

[Zonkerbl]

Best predictor of decline is whether you've had injuries. Make it through your career without any significant injuries and you will last longer.

What significant injuries have Kobe, Duncan, Garnett, Kurt Thomas, Nazr Mohammed, Marcus Camby had? Pretty sure Camby has had some injuries, but nothing rings a bell for the others. For that matter, what significant injuries did MJ have? Stockton? Malone? Wilt Chamberlin? Jabbar?

How long did Dr. J play?

So some career lengthening is people entering the NBA earlier, some is probably injury prevention and some better non-invasive techniques for treating injuries.

[tontoz]

Highly skilled players age much better than those that rely heavily on athleticism. See Nash vs Iverson.

[Nivek]

All-time greats tend to have longer careers, in part because they had talent/ability to burn, so to speak. It would be interesting to study whether "rank and file" players are showing changes in aging effects. There have been recent studies on this using fairly recent data sets. David Berri found a very young peak using his metric (around 24-25). Others have found slightly later peaks -- 26-27. The research thus far would suggest that most players peak between 24-27, maintain their level of play into their early 30s (30-32) and then experience a decline -- often a fairly sharp one.

[pancakes3]

Prompted by Zonk to search by age instead of # of seasons. Age of 35 in select years

2013: 19 players, 10 with PER's of 15+
2003: 29 players (!) 11 with PER's of 15+
1993: 13 players 3 players with PER's of 15+
1983: 3 players, all 3 with PER's of 15+
1973: 5 players, 3 players with PER's of 15+

I checked out 2001-2002 and 2003-2004 to see if it was fluke year.
2002: 35 guys 11 of PER+, 2004: 30 guys with 8 guys of PER+...

[montestewart]

Prompted by Zonk to search by age instead of # of seasons. Age of 35 in select years

2013: 19 players, 10 with PER's of 15+
2003: 29 players (!) 11 with PER's of 15+
1993: 13 players 3 players with PER's of 15+
1983: 3 players, all 3 with PER's of 15+
1973: 5 players, 3 players with PER's of 15+

I checked out 2001-2002 and 2003-2004 to see if it was fluke year.
2002: 35 guys 11 of PER+, 2004: 30 guys with 8 guys of PER+...

Wonder if the other PER had something to do with that peak you've apparently uncovered?

[pancakes3]

PE...Ds? I have a hard time seeing Stockton, Kerr, and Tony Massenburg on the juice. Karl Malone though...

[montestewart]

PE...Ds? I have a hard time seeing Stockton, Kerr, and Tony Massenburg on the juice. Karl Malone though...

Haha, I have no idea what I was thinking the R stood for.

I used to think only beefy athletes took PEDs, but now I'm not so sure. Not specifically saying any or all of them juiced, but that peak is odd, and it was prior to serious attempts to crack down. Maybe the CBA had some effect on the trend too, although I don't know enough about it to speculate how.