Stockton's longevity is the Biggest Outlier in history

[Cavsfansince84]

It is in terms of age though it may have helped that he didn't start playing major minutes until he was 25. Also his ability to play pg with an absurdly low t/o% helped his metrics a lot.

Not sure what you are referring to. Chris Paul is the player with the absurdly low t/o% (career 13.4), Stockton's is up in the much more normal range for a PG (career 20.8, a bit higher than either Jason Kidd or Steve Nash to use two comps) though his a/t rate is extremely high because of his amazing assist totals. On the other hand, you couldn't mean Chris Paul because he started playing big NBA minutes at 20. I think you may be improperly conflating the two stats.

What I was referring to was strictly Stockton in his age 36-40 years(nothing to do with CP3). CP3's to% is even better but what I was specifically commenting on is things that went into how good Stockton's metrics were in his late 30's ie him not playing major minutes until he was 25 and his low turnovers at that age. Nash's to% in his late 30's was noticeably higher than Stockton's.

[penbeast0]

Stockton's turnover percentage is pretty much the same as it was throughout his career, especially when correlated with assists. Nash's got a little worse but, except for 2012, his turnover % was roughly at the Stockton level in the later years after being a bit lower earlier in his career. Kidd's got significantly worse, though. I just don't see Stockton as a low turnover genius like Paul.

You might look into John Havlicek; a wing who significantly improved after 30 for example, and I'm sure there are a few others, but Stockton is indeed probably the far end of the outlier curve so the OP statement is indeed reasonable.

[Cavsfansince84]

Stockton's turnover percentage is pretty much the same as it was throughout his career, especially when correlated with assists. Nash's got a little worse but, except for 2012, his turnover % was roughly at the Stockton level in the later years after being a bit lower earlier in his career. Kidd's got significantly worse, though. I just don't see Stockton as a low turnover genius like Paul.

You might look into John Havlicek; a wing who significantly improved after 30 for example, and I'm sure there are a few others, but Stockton is indeed probably the far end of the outlier curve so the OP statement is indeed reasonable.

My only semi criticism of the op is whether age in itself is the best criteria to use for longevity(as opposed to something like length of prime or number of all nba teams reached or something similar) and to what degree bpm should be used to the exclusion of anything else. This isn't because I am anti Stockton. Its simply about what methods we are using to reach a conclusion.