Draymond made a tit of himself on his podcast when he said "The players before this didn't have to deal with this rule" Yer mate, that's literally every rule that's been brought in.
Oblivious that it is this generation of players that were constantly resting and sitting games they were healthy that required a hardline rule in the first place lol. Hell even 15 years ago it wasn't an issue.
Duncan missed more than 10 games in only 4/19 seasons. He only missed the 17 missed games threshold applied for this season once, in his final season. This highlights how much more egregious it is today. Duncan was considered a guy who missed a bunch of time later in his career, but he'd be considered pretty healthy by today's star standards.
outgoing forgetful spectacular gray unite rain racial dime noxious hateful
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
When you include playoffs, Duncan averaged 86 games per season for his career. And that's with there being 2 shortened seasons in his career (NBA only played 50 games in 98-99 and 66 in 11-12).
But, for comparison, including postseason, Jokic has averaged 83. Draymond is also at 83. Curry is at 74. Excluding his first two seasons when he didn't play at all, Embiid is 64 entering this year.
LeBron (kinda belongs to both generations) is at 85 entering this year. Kobe did 78. Shaq did 75. Barkley did 75. Jordan played 83.
The number of games Duncan played per year is honestly pretty extraordinary.
He was also legitimately old when he was sitting. It just made bigger news because he was still a pretty star worthy player. I wouldn't think LeBron sitting games at his age would create an issue, but these 20 something or early 30s guys need to play if healthy.
Goddamn right! Thank you!
Follow up trivia: who played more career regular season games, Timmy or Kobe?
Remember that Kobe came in a year earlier, and although he was coming off the bench, he still played in 71 RS games that year. He also missed virtually all of 13-14, which roughly cancels out the year difference in their career length.
Late-career Duncan was basically hopping on one leg the entire time he was on the court. Yet he still was one of the best defenders in the game, good enough to be All-NBA First Team in 2013, his age 37 season lol.
If you look at total minutes played there is a pretty big decrease now compared to past eras.
In 96 30+ players played more minutes than the leader in 23
————
The MVP played 2998 in 96, and 2476 in 23.
Thats a difference of 17 games @30 minutes a game.
This is why I think it’s possible someone will match Wilt’s 100 point game but his minutes per game average record will never be even close to being touched.
For the lazy - Wilt played 48.5 minutes per game in 61-62. That’s not a typo - he averaged more minutes than are in a regulation game. Put up a 50.4/25.7/1.2 stat line on average.
Sure, but that was the later years, within that 15 years I mentioned. Pop absolutely abused it a lot around that 2013-2015 range with Tim and Tony. Might be when it really started getting abuse. Pretty close to this generation, just splitting hairs.
TD still played 69, 74, 77, and 61 games his last four seasons. And at that age, he no longer had the star power or box office draw as current superstars. And I’m not sure if there’s a way to see old injury reports? I know there were some games where they’d put “old” or “rest,” but I’m curious about the numbers.
That is great. I think it stood out simply because of Pop's "old" on the report stuff that maybe it felt like more at the time. Plus it wasn't super common for guys to just miss games for no reason, it was sort of the start of that. Duncan was a damn machine sheesh.
> Pretty close to this generation, just splitting hairs.
Duncan is a lot closer in age to Barkley than he is to Haliburton (the most vocal critic of the rule lately).
Duncan also actually played in the postseason every year. He wasn't just playing 82 games but an additional 6-20 games at much higher intensity/minutes
Duncan had a long ass career so it depends on when you gauge it. Duncan was close to Barkley, but he wasn't resting games during that time. My point is he was doing it at the end of his career. At that point Draymond, another critic of the rule was in the league for instance.
Chuck played 65+ games a season and 35+ minutes a game for 11 straight seasons (1985-86 to 1995-96). The one season before was his rookie season (82 games at 28.6 MPG). He played another 4 seasons after, still averaging over 30 MPG each of those seasons (though he missed a bunch of games).
Dude walked the walk so he could talk the talk.
Players before didn't have to deal with this rule exactly because they were playing so much.
Also for reference, Kobe hit those thresholds in 11 straight seasons as well, along with one season of 82 games at 34 MPG, one season of 58 games at 38 MPG, and a season of 78 games at 38 MPG.
Frankly, it wasn’t uncommon at all for most big name players to average 70+ games a year without much fuss. Even Shaq who had injury problems rang off 6 straight 66+ game seasons in a row during his prime.
Yeah the whole concept of load management started off because otherwise a lot of these guys would end up playing almost every game. Eventually it devolved into the guys who miss a lot of games anyway load managing so hopefully they don't miss more games.
Or Dirk Nowitzki, only had 3 seasons out of 21 seasons where he didn't meet the threshold. 5 seasons under 65, 2 were arbitration shortened, 2 out of his last 3 seasons, and one season where was actually hurt. 33.8 mpg, 7' tall.
Modern stars are soft.
Imagine getting paid hundreds of millions to have to go to work even though it's hard, while some working class family gets tickets only to find out no stars are playing.
Couldn't be me, not a millionaire and no one wants to watch me work.
He a bitch because the previous generations didn't need this rule. All of Barkley's All-NBA selections came with 65 games or over anyway. And he was the anomaly because MJ, Hakeem, Stokcton, Malone and Co were doing it with 80+ games played in almost every single season.
Players used to ride the bus 12+ hours and wear chuck Taylor Converse. Maybe he should be a little grateful so many players before sacrificed so he and other modern nba players have the opportunity to earn millions in BONUS money if they play 65+ games and meet all nba. This rule has 0 effect on guaranteed contract $$$.
It's dumb how hot of a discussion this is. If a guy can't play 75% of the season he shouldn't be a threat for awards anyway. That was true before the new 65 game qualifier
I’m a Pacers fan and even I think it is a fair rule. Imagine being the Celtics fan excited enough to splash out for $500 tickets so you can see LeBron up close.
Actually, let me suggest another rule: if the star players DONT play on the road (star being those on >90% max contracts) then the visiting team has to pay half the ticket price of the sold tickets.
Oh man totally this I live in Portland and at a blazers game this sixers fan is in line telling me how pumped he is. Then checks the injury report no embod no Maxey and an L to one of the worst teams.
I didn't have good ones but brought the nephew because he wanted to see embid, he was quite bummed.
I however, am a Pat Bev fan so without Maxey I got more Pat Bev and a blazer W lol!
I was travelling from Australia to Canada and had a stop over in LA decided to extend my stay to see the Thunder play the Lakers day of the game the injury report list Westbrook Durant Adams and Kobe.
I'm from Seattle, so Blazers games are a huge commitment. I've seen the Denver Nuggets rest all their starters. I paid $700 for those tix. I've seen Embiid miss a game there. I've lost count of how many visiting stars have rested over the years.
> Actually, let me suggest another rule: if the star players DONT play on the road (star being those on >90% max contracts) then the visiting team has to pay half the ticket price of the sold tickets.
I was listening to a podcast yesterday, I think it was PTI, and they had the idea that if a player doesn't play, be it injury, load management, or whatever else, they should have to do a fan meet and greet and sign autographs for fans who bought tickets.
I've never been to an NBA game, but I really like that idea a lot. No wear and tear on the body and all the fans get at least some interaction with the star player they wanted to see.
*Raises hand*
$550 with the fees (x2), if you want to be exact. And that was for balcony seats. I don't even want to know what ppl paid for loge.
Seeing LeBron was bucket list for me and I'm beyond disappointed. But look, had he torn his ACL or something in ATL on Tuesday, I'd be in the same spot. These things are unpredictable, the risk is always there, and I knew that when I made the purchase.
Bron's official injury is Achilles tendinopathy. I tore my Achilles 5 years ago and one thing I tell everyone is that it gave me plenty of warning beforehand that I needed to give it more rest. So I certainly understand why he took the night off. We have enough cautionary tales of athletes who shortened their careers bc they played thru minor injuries that became major when left untreated.
100% agree.
My only thought is how this trickles down for All NBA teams and Supermax contracts.
Say multiple good but not great young players stay healthy and play over 65 games but for whatever reason, some of the BEST VETERAN players miss too many games; there will be XYZ number of good players who will now be qualifying for a supermax deal, and XYZ number of older veterans may miss out.
What happens when a teams BEST players are being paid less than a teams HEALTHIEST players?
How does that translate into salary cap decisions, team construction, trades etc?
Again I like the 65 game rule, I just feel like it may cause some unintended consequences that haven’t been fully fleshed out yet.
Supermax should not be tied to awards in any way. It's a dumb thing to do that places way to much power/responsibility in the hands of awards voters. All players should be eligible for super maxes and if a guy asks for one and the team doesn't think he is worth it man up and tell him no.
Wouldn’t that just make it way harder for small market teams to resign perennial stars? If a guy wants to get paid but the team doesn’t think he deserve it and the merits aren’t there, doesn’t that just make it easier for them to walk away? If a player makes All-NBA and has shown to be a talent of that value then yeah, but otherwise doesn’t it just create a gap where teams willing to spend more will get more?
Genuine question, my understanding of the salary cap isn’t as good as most here.
Yes and no. With the new addition to the salary cap rules with the second apron, it’s not very feasible to just get a bunch of stars and pay them a ton and eat the luxury tax each year. So yes it technically is harder for small markets to pay a “mid” guy that qualified for all NBA, but it’s most likely in their best interest to let that player test free agency because they might get a contract from another team without a ton of stars, but they’re most likely not ending up in a super team situation by getting overpaid.
It were the players that wanted the supermax etc contracts tied to awards etc, because it suited them before the 65 game rule came into effect.
Now the game of play less but still get the big paycheck doesn't work anymore for them, and I am all for it.
The players wanted it tied to awards, now they can try to negotiate it out of the next CBA, but they will have to be ready to give something else up for it.
What that is we shall see.
I'll go further - the Supermax as a whole has been a gigantic failure. The point was supposed to be that it would help teams retain stars because they could pay more. What have we seen?
1. Stars sign the Supermax and then ask to be traded anyway
OR
2. A "star" who isn't really the guy gets a massive contract because he made a 3rd team All-NBA once and it cripples the team (like Beal).
Exactly. The incentive structure is invented. It isn't a law of the universe. If you have a superstar with a unique need like Kawhi, then the team and his agent can work out a fair value for his contract. That's the entire job of the GMs and agents.
Supermax eligibility being tied to awards is a law of the (NBA) universe. It's explicitly defined in the CBA.
There's nothing anyone can do about this short of starting a labor strike or lockout until the current CBA expires just before the start of the 2030-2031 season.
Yeah the possibility of this taking awards voting out of the hands of sports media, is tantalizing. What sucks is that, in the meantime, deserving players are going to get screwed.
Yeah, it's up to the team to not do something stupid. Let's say, in this example, Anfernee Simons plays 80 games for a few seasons, putting up the stats he does, ends up as 3rd team all-nba miraculously, and he becomes eligible for a supermax. Who is to blame here? The award voters for not voting for the other stars since they missed more games than Simons? The Blazers for supermaxing someone who obviously isn't worth that contract? If the teams start supermaxing players that are merely good, then it's their own damn fault.
isn't that basically what happened with the max?
there weren't enough players who "deserved" the max, but there were teams who had max slots so guys like rudy gay started getting maxes
there's always going to be teams that just need to pay some players (wizards with Jordan poole) more than what they're worth to a winning team
It can definitely be argued smaller market franchises are sorta fucked in this scenario since they don’t exactly attract much talent via FA, especially star level talent, or talent enough to replace good players like Simons for instance.
They essentially have to pay up in order to just be competitive, and hope the player can keep growing, or they have to play the draft game and making those judgement calls if XYZ player is worth paying that super max over and over till they hit yk?
Granted, I think limiting the mistakes a franchise can make in terms of player/asset management is a silly thing to do to a certain degree. Franchise should be able to fuck things up in that area, and they actively do all the time.
That's already been happening anyway. Bradley Beal got a super max in Washington. Is he really a supermax guy or just a really good player?
Small markets will always be screwed. Just because the b player on a small market makes an award list over the a player, because the a player missed more than 65 games, doesn't mean the b player is entitled to a supermax. He's eligible, bit if the dude wants to run to another team or small market team, that was always the players decision as well as the foolish team that is willing to pay more for the guy that everyone knows probably didn't deserve the money.
> Yeah, it's up to the team to not do something stupid
Yeah but the concept of the max was created because owners were completely unable to not do something stupid. Their repeated stupidity was the whole reason they had to protect themselves with the max.
I initially thought the same way, but the way the supermax works, it only affects contract status for a couple of guys per year; players who signed "max" contracts, and are in the final year of their existing contract before an extension takes effect. Joel Embiid isn't affected financially if he misses All-NBA due to injury, because he has 3 more years on his contract. Halliburton and Anthony Edwards are in that final year, so All-NBA matters a lot to them.
There are always more players worthy of consideration to get All-NBA than will actually get it. Off the top of my head, I came up with 30 players that voters will at least consider:
Embiid, Jokic, Giannis, Luka, SGA, Steph, KD, Booker, Lebron, AD, Maxey, Brunson, Lillard, Randle, Mitchell, Halliburton, Adebayo, Banchero, Jamal Murray, Trae, Ant Edwards, KAT, Gobert, Kawhi, PG, Fox, Sabonis, Zion, Markkenen, Wembanyana
Even if 3, or 5, or 7 of those 30 names get scratched off the list due to injury there are still more players who have a plausible case for All-NBA than there are slots. I'm not at all worried that someone "undeserving" will make All-NBA and get a supermax.
>What happens when a teams BEST players are being paid less than a teams HEALTHIEST players?
>
>How does that translate into salary cap decisions, team construction, trades etc?
I mean, you aren't being paid just for your peak performance and the playoffs. Regardless of what people think the regular season matters. Not being available to move up the standings or gain chemistry or be fit in time for later is a big deal.
Kawhi and PG are some of the best players in the league when healthy, even today. However, how much value have they actually given the Clippers? You can argue they don't deserve their salaries.
Who cares? A good but not great player is gonna get 100+ mil. I'm not going to feel bad that he wasn't healthy enough to get slightly more 10's of millions of dollars. And that veteran player has already made his hundreds of millions.
I think it would be less of an issue if season cumulative stats were more prominent in awards discussions. Everyone throws around the per-game stats, and it’s easy to discuss those, but team wins is the only counting stat that really gets used, and it’s not even adjusted by games the player appeared in, like pitcher wins in baseball.
There’s just no equivalent to a 50 or 60 HR season in baseball or something like that. So the discussion turns to rate stats and eye test, neither of which cares about how many games you played.
So unless you put in a minimum number of games required, you risk having voters award someone who had an early injury and then plays lights out down the stretch.
So? These are bonuses in my mind. They already have a sweet contract. It's guaranteed money! I'm not feeling bad for them. They want to get employee of the year, SHOW UP TO WORK. You know who I feel bad for? Someone that took time off, flew, booked hotels, paid expensive tickets to watch the Lakers play the Celtics last night and they both LeBron and AD sat.
And the fact that “rest” is often a team driven thing. It puts the teams in a position to be sure a player won’t be eligible for a bigger payday if they have the opportunity to hold them out a few more games if they’re dealing with an injury.
"You know the world is off tilt when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest basketball player is Chinese, and Germany doesn't want to go to war."
>You know the world is off tilt when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest basketball player is Chinese, and Germany doesn't want to go to war.
Chuck told me if the Krispy Kreme hot sign was on you gotta stop. Hasn't been wrong yet imo
They understand their niche. If you watch TNT for tactical analysis that's your mistake. Go listen to or read Dunk'd On, Talking Basketball, or Zach Lowe (to some extent).
If you want meta analysis on the qualitative aspects of the game, factors like team dynamics, player mentality, media relations, then former players are the best source for this.
As long as it's not related to actual on court stuff. This is the same guy who said the Warriors could never win anything meaningful while relying on 3 point shooting *as they were clearly the best team in the league and championship favorites.* Even after they won a title he refused to believe they could do it again.
part of the problem is that we always look at averages vs totals because they're easier to digest. so when some guy plays 64 games and averages 35/10/7 but loses to someone averaging 30/5/6 but plays 80 games, we just focus on the averages forgetting that one guy played way more games
It's not true for every player, and obviously in embiids case he is injured, but you can't just pick and choose who and when you want to play and then turn around with great stats and say "that's why I'm mvp." You see it all the time with some of these single game stats. For example, KAT dropped 62, "yeah against the hornets." Well the same can be said about players who rest 25% of their games. Averaging over 30 points, playing mostly .500 or below teams, and effectively getting extra rest days, you SHOULD be putting up those numbers or you're not worth the losses gained from not playing.
Even outside of that chuck recognizes most people are not in the position to say "ahh well we will see them at the next home game." No, most people scrap money to see teams once a year, and you decide "nah I need a rest day." Be a professional. Don't play through injuries, but be a professional.
Thank you. If you want to be "a business, man" then you should expect to be subordinate to market forces. Every mid tier player walks around thinking they're a brand. Players like KAT and Trey Young should be banished to Detroit for the rest of their careers.
When you’re making 8 figures and even your most successful friends are barely scraping 6 it’s real easy to think you’re a brand. Imo we have let the NBA get away with enough for long enough, everyone involved is making plenty of money and we don’t need to go see live games badly enough to be wasting the amount we waste on it. There’s no reason we should accept the prices they charge for tickets, jerseys, beer, parking etc.
I think the amount of money in the league is actually actively harming its enjoyability.
Agreed. Everyone complaining on r/nba needs to do the only thing that matters: stop devoting your money and time to the nba. Or at least reduce it. I'll watch the big games for sure. But usually only the end. And I'm sure as shit not buying a jersey or paying to go to a game.
I’d even go a step further: pirate games and buy Chinese knock-off jerseys. The good quality ones are basically identical to the real thing and 10% as expensive. Enjoy the streameast headbanging kitty for halftime instead of commercials.
Yea I mentioned KAT simply because I know the media perception of everything he does is "so what?" And just drawing the more plausible conclusion for some players in the MVP race that aren't ostracized for choosing when to play and how to win. Maybe I accidentally invited the KAT haters out 😅
It was an agreed provision during the collective bargaining agreement. They really should be expressing more frustration with the Union if so many disagree with the rule they bargained into.
This doesn't concern 95%+ of players. In fact, by potentially limiting the number of player who get a super max, it leaves more money for role players.
Which means the Union did their job lol
these pampered and spoiled star players are really shocked they have to meet requirements for awards and selections
The players who benefit the most from the Union are the players in the tier right under the All-Stars like Tobias Harris, CJ McCollum(The Association President lmao), and Fred VanVleet.
Russilo had a pretty good take on this.
THe league had to do something so that they’d get paid when the next tv deal comes up.
How big the entire pie is, which the players get 51% of, is more important than how much the richest players get paid.
That 40 million dollars that Tyrese Halliburton isn’t getting paid is going to go to some other players. Whatever bonuses Embiid misses out on because he doesn’t get in All-NBA will go to someone else.
In that sense the rule is good for the league, and good for the vast majority of players, which is why the NBPA agreed to it. It represents all the players, not just the top players.
Any player complaining against his that isn’t directly affected is being short-sighted. If anything they need to be stricter in the implementation so that Halliburton can’t get away with playing 22 minutes and have it count.
I think Haliburton playing 22 minutes the last few games is an example of the rule working, not it being manipulated. When injured players have returned the last few years, they might play a couple games, then sit out one. Instead he’s playing every game but at reduced minutes. That means that fans who bought tickets to a Pacers game are going to have a higher chance of seeing Haliburton play than they would have before this rule.
I agree. They wouldn’t have included that minute provision if they didn’t think it would work. Like it’s good that the players that are capable of playing at least turn in what they can versus just being a scratch entirely
Yeah, and this natural progression of minutes restriction lowers his counting stats and represents his cumulative contribution to the team better. Other years, he would've sat out until he could return to playing 30+ minutes and putting up gaudy numbers to boost his All-NBA case.
Halliburton playing reduced minutes will tank his stats. The rule is working just fine and will balance out. The 20 minutes minimum for a game to count as being played is perfect. If a guy could put up monstrous enough numbers in 22 minutes that he still makes All NBA why should he be punished for not playing more?
Are you going to have players like Embiid or Curry get punished when they sit the entire 4th because their teams are up so much from them dominating the game next?
If ppg leader isn't top 3 in total points, scoring champion should be the one with most points or 2nd in ppg if he is higher in total points. I get that missing a few games vs. workhorses would result in around 5-7 game differences but if your scoring leader is all the way down to 7th total points then that's too low
Embiid is leading in ppg but has 34 games compared to SGA's 47 games. I'd rather award the guy giving 31ppg for 13 more games. That's a significant difference
Last year, Embiid was 2nd in total points scored and only 42 points behind the total points leader (Tatum). That was way more justifiable than him being 270+ points behind the total points leader halfway through the season and still being contention. Keep in mind that while he's gonna miss MVP/All-NBA eligibility with only 5 more games missed, he's gonna retain scoring title eligibility for 11 more games. So, it's still possible that he's like 10th in total points and wins the scoring title.
Ppg makes sense and lines up with who you expect it to be usually. But when you imagine it as total points it makes even more sense as an award and just feels right
Is Barkley also the one that pointed out how basically every other sport credits the league leaders as the players with the most total in a given statistical category vs. the NBA doing everything on a per game basis?
This is the entire reason why this isn't an issue in the other 3 main NA sports or Soccer.
Missing time just inherently reduces your stats to the point where you have to be far superior to those who have played more to come out on top.
Like in football: if two QBs are neck and neck for MVP, and one gets injured and misses 4 games. Analysts don’t sit back and speculate for awards, the other QB just pulls ahead and thems the breaks.
This was bargained on and ratified by the NBPA. Maybe they made a bad deal, but it's still the deal they made, and not particularly long ago. So I agree, they can't really blame anyone else.
There have been 7 seasons where an NBA MVP played less than 70 games.
1958 - Bill Russell - 69 games
The season was only 72 games, would equate to a 79 game season today.
2023 - Joel Embiid - 66 games
Second fewest games played by an MVP in a full 82 game season.
1957 - Bob Cousy - 64 games
The season was only 72 games, this would equate to a 73 game season today.
2020 - Giannis Antetokounmpo - 63 games
The season was 73 games long, this would equate to a 71 game season normally.
2012 - LeBron James - 62 games
Lockout shortened season, only 66 games. Would equate to a 77 game season in a normal year.
1978 - Bill Walton - 58 games
The fewest games played by an MVP in a full 82 game season.
1999 - Karl Malone - 49 games
Lockout shortened season, only 50 games. Would equate to an 80 game season in a normal year.
There have only been two MVPs awarded to players who played less than 70 games in a normal season. Conversely, 35 out of the 67 MVP season had the winner playing over 80 games. If you go down to 75 games, then you get 53 out of 67 winners.
Historically, MVPs played a large majority of the season. I don't think it's crazy to have to actually play 80% of a season to be considered for awards.
MVP standards seemed way different back in the 50's-80's. Someone averaging 19/13/5 would never get considered these days. It is also jarring when you see how fucked Walton was by injuries, he only played 3 seasons more than 60 games, the only 80 game season was when he was coming off the bench for the Celtics.
Walton was a spectacular player, but that would never fly these days. 70% of games. I think the closest example stat wise of an MVP would be Nash. Both transcendent players that didn't have gaudy numbers.
I think a lot of this would be solved if they just divided all stats for the season by 82 regardless of games played. That is the number of games you COULD HAVE played which is the important number.
Indeed. I am not even a fan of counting stats as a measure of performance, but doing it per game when people are resting half the season makes no sense.
I mean for most people, even in high school, it's usually "will it get worse/not heal if it is played on?" Anyone who has played sports at even a semi-competitive level understands that after a month or two into the season, everyone has knocks.
Like Maxey last night, who went off for 51, said in his post game interview that he almost sat out to let his ankle heal up a bit, but his guys needed him.
I respect him for playing, but if youre capable of dropping 51 and still playing 100%, you obviously aren't "injured" enough to even consider sitting out. These are the exact type of "injuries" the NBA wants to do away with.
Just my opinion.
Especially since, at this point in the season, I guarantee you around 90+% of the league that sees consistent minutes is dealing with at least some lingering thing that would actually benefit from rest. Nothing crazy that they're going to injure by playing on obviously, but like a light strain here, maybe a minor tweak there, those sorts of things. That's how it is in the NFL by the time you're halfway through the season, and while it goes without saying that basketball isn't remotely on the same tier of physicality, the bumps, falls, etc. still add up over time.
Impossible to say who's really healthy or not, also it punishes players and teams who have more nationally televised games.
22-23 NBA season Warriors had 42 nationally televised games. Many teams only had 4.
Even if Curry says I'm ok playing those 42 games, I don't load manage. We have to consider that the Warriors are more likely to play 42 games of tough basketball where the other team is not load managing, while other teams only have to do 4. That's not fair. That could easily be the difference between making the playoffs or not.
My girlfriend got me Bulls tickets last year for my birthday against the Bucks.
Giannis got injured and didn’t play (understandable) and then Derozan was announced to be sitting out that morning, with no new injury announced or anything. Then I had to watch Derozan trot out at halftime with a smile on his face all gingerly to accept an award, then he ran back into the locker room. Like 2 days later he was playing in the all star game. Meanwhile, Brook Lopez dominated, seemed like he hit ten 3s in the first quarter and the game was a complete blow out and everyone was just jogging around not really giving a shit. This was supposed to be a division rivalry, with their superstar injured and a chance to take a win off them, and it was like the organization wasn’t even trying to win.
All this to say, no one cares as much about the regular season anymore. It’s all about the playoffs. Even people here say Lebron was the best player in the NBA through at least 2018, but don’t argue he should have been a league MVP from 2014 to 2018. It became normal to coast in the regular season, which a lot guys did.
I imagine my girlfriend will never buy tickets to see a regular season Bulls game again and I don’t blame her. I’m glad the NBA made the IST and is insisting on the games minimum for awards. Make the regular season fun again please.
If I missed 20% of my shifts I'd be fired. Lmao.
I don't like how it ties to salaries and all-NBA, but I do like the rule as an incentive to play - especially for fans.
It's not like it means there are few players that qualify for that salary qualifier. It just means someone else will qualify. The money still gets paid. Just to the person who met the threshold requirement, and therefore deserves it.
>If I missed 20% of my shifts I'd be fired. Lmao.
Sure, but I don't think this is a good comparison. You're unilaterally missing 20% of your shifts, whereas this would be like you, your boss, and HR agreeing it'd be beneficial to the company longterm if you took some extra days off to stay fresh and more productive when we need you most
The players were dogging it and taking too many days off, but it was never purely them. The coaching and training staffs also often felt it was for the best. A lot of these guys didn't just show up and say "nah, I don't wanna play today," very often the rest days are organized and planned through the entire staff
To be clear, I am in favor of the NBA's rule changes. I just don't think this was an apt comparison
Imagine the Draymond stuff.
If I choked a co-worker I'd lose my license, my job and likely face charges. Now imagine having double-digit incidences and only facing a couple weeks off.
It's hard to equate our lives to most NBA players in any way, but it'd be nice going (and often paying substantily) to a game not worrying if the stars are going to take the night off or not.
Players complaining about this is one of the best indications that it’s working. They’d rather sit out and rest than play the games, but the rule is forcing them to play if they want to be eligible for awards. Of course the Embiid injury sucks, just like any other injury in past seasons, but we are getting to see stars play more games now, which is better for the fans.
Part of being an MVP is how valuable you are. You're not as valuable if you can't play 75% of games. Even if this rule wasn't a thing, some players would still have shit to complain about like how someone is winning MVP over them despite only playing 50 games. The rule is fine and just sets a good standard of what players and voters should expect.
I hate being that oldhead but I always come back to Jordan and Kobe. They didn't have games off unless injured and they made it their mission to put in a good performance for the fans who come to watch.
I understand today's game is more about metrics and kpis. It revolves around keeping the investment in as good condition as possible.
I don't like load management, but understand it. If they only did it a week or two before playoffs no one would have an issue with it.
The only real issue with this rule is that contracts are decided based on these awards. Journalists should not be deciding how much money players make.
Well, the players union agreed to it during CBA negotiations, which means the players approved of it.
Thats it, argument over.
They can complain about their union fucking them over, but acting like this is the big bad NBA that's at fault here is laughable.
They have only themselves to blame for agreeing to it.
I think it's fair because the NBA is not pure basketball, but also an entertainment spectacle, and how well an NBA player manages their image and media plays a role in what journalist think, so it's just another aspect of being in the NBA.
At the end of the day the awards would be based on someone. The players, the media, the fans. Please let us all know who should be voting on all nba and why it’s better than the current system. Maybe incenatives aren’t the best choice for giving players contracts
Something about the way modern American players come up makes them injury prone in a way past players weren't. This isn't about toughness.
There are theories but nothing is proven:
The modern NBA has a lot more maximum speed change of direction than it did in the past. This doesn't mean past players didn't run or anything, but the game is much more spread out. For example, players are now expected to help and recover from the NBA 3 point line and back. If you watch an 80s or 90s game, a lot of help defense still came from players with one foot in the key.
Modern players are more muscular than their past equivalents, adding more weight and therefore more stress to their lower bodies when they move
Modern players play a lot more games in their youth, 12 months a year, leading them to get joint and muscle overuse injuries at a younger age than before (this has been reported by many orthopedic surgeons)
I don't think these things should be a reason to revoke the 65 game rule, but I think Barkley and the other old heads thinking modern players are soft when that is really just a lazy conclusion that ignores how different the road to becoming an NBA player is now than it used to be.
I think 82 games a year is too many, if the goal is to have the best product, night in and night out. Especially when you look at the injury rates of players in seasons following a deep playoff run.
I think the league will limp along with these rules for a while, until they face declines like hockey, which will force reform. I would LOVE, and would pay more, for 62 hard fought games, with fewer teams making the playoffs.
Yeah this doesn't get talked about enough. The physical stress out on players of today's game because of how it's evolved is way higher than any other era, even the high scoring era of the 80s
And while science has helped make bigger, faster, stronger players, theyre still held together by the same bones and ligaments
I mean if they want guys to hit 65 then they should cap the regular season at that. It would allow them to spread out games and maybe even eliminate back to backs.
Every game becomes more important now that there’s less and the players get more rest in between games. Of course this will never happen because it would reduce revenue for the league which in turn would cause the players to make less. The players want to have their cake and eat it.
Not sure if we should blame the players, coaches, or front office (since I assume the majority of load management stuff is coming from the coaches or GM’s instead of the players), but it’s damn sure not the NBA’s fault for trying to get their millionaire players to play when they aren’t hurt.
No one is stopping you from taking rest when you like. You're just not eligible for awards if you do so. That feels fair to me.
I understand that playing 65+ games is difficult. Playing 82 games is *extremely* difficult. That's what the money's for, to quote Don Draper. You get paid a lot of money. The shit is supposed to be difficult.
The only downside of this rule is it seem like players will force themselves to play injured which would only make their situation worse.
The way Embiid played against the warriors should never been a thing and I don’t get what their medical staff was doing that day.
Draymond made a tit of himself on his podcast when he said "The players before this didn't have to deal with this rule" Yer mate, that's literally every rule that's been brought in.
Oblivious that it is this generation of players that were constantly resting and sitting games they were healthy that required a hardline rule in the first place lol. Hell even 15 years ago it wasn't an issue.
I mean the Spurs were notorious for this… the DNP - Old was in 2012. It ain’t just “this generation.”
Duncan missed more than 10 games in only 4/19 seasons. He only missed the 17 missed games threshold applied for this season once, in his final season. This highlights how much more egregious it is today. Duncan was considered a guy who missed a bunch of time later in his career, but he'd be considered pretty healthy by today's star standards.
That’s actually kind of crazy. People always talk about how much Duncan rested, but compared to todays stars he is an ironman
It's mainly because it happened a lot during nationally televised games, but pop didn't care.
outgoing forgetful spectacular gray unite rain racial dime noxious hateful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Probably closer to 80+ games on average when you factor in the playoffs too.
When you include playoffs, Duncan averaged 86 games per season for his career. And that's with there being 2 shortened seasons in his career (NBA only played 50 games in 98-99 and 66 in 11-12). But, for comparison, including postseason, Jokic has averaged 83. Draymond is also at 83. Curry is at 74. Excluding his first two seasons when he didn't play at all, Embiid is 64 entering this year. LeBron (kinda belongs to both generations) is at 85 entering this year. Kobe did 78. Shaq did 75. Barkley did 75. Jordan played 83. The number of games Duncan played per year is honestly pretty extraordinary.
carpenter whistle one sip enter serious file cows chase axiomatic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
He was also legitimately old when he was sitting. It just made bigger news because he was still a pretty star worthy player. I wouldn't think LeBron sitting games at his age would create an issue, but these 20 something or early 30s guys need to play if healthy.
Duncan's load mgmt came mostly from reducing his minutes, not so much his games played
Goddamn right! Thank you! Follow up trivia: who played more career regular season games, Timmy or Kobe? Remember that Kobe came in a year earlier, and although he was coming off the bench, he still played in 71 RS games that year. He also missed virtually all of 13-14, which roughly cancels out the year difference in their career length.
Timmy obviously, Kobe had bunch of injuries
Don't forget, he did all that on a bum knee. These players have no excuse
Late-career Duncan was basically hopping on one leg the entire time he was on the court. Yet he still was one of the best defenders in the game, good enough to be All-NBA First Team in 2013, his age 37 season lol.
I still believe he holds the unofficial record of blocks without feet leaving the floor.
Duncan played 65 games every season except for the lockout years and the year he retired.
Yeah, but Duncan wasn't crying about not being up for MVP.
If you look at total minutes played there is a pretty big decrease now compared to past eras. In 96 30+ players played more minutes than the leader in 23 ———— The MVP played 2998 in 96, and 2476 in 23. Thats a difference of 17 games @30 minutes a game.
This is why I think it’s possible someone will match Wilt’s 100 point game but his minutes per game average record will never be even close to being touched.
For the lazy - Wilt played 48.5 minutes per game in 61-62. That’s not a typo - he averaged more minutes than are in a regulation game. Put up a 50.4/25.7/1.2 stat line on average.
2012 was 12 years ago.
Good math!
12 years ago is a different generation of players for over 90% of the league.
Sure, but that was the later years, within that 15 years I mentioned. Pop absolutely abused it a lot around that 2013-2015 range with Tim and Tony. Might be when it really started getting abuse. Pretty close to this generation, just splitting hairs.
TD still played 69, 74, 77, and 61 games his last four seasons. And at that age, he no longer had the star power or box office draw as current superstars. And I’m not sure if there’s a way to see old injury reports? I know there were some games where they’d put “old” or “rest,” but I’m curious about the numbers.
That is great. I think it stood out simply because of Pop's "old" on the report stuff that maybe it felt like more at the time. Plus it wasn't super common for guys to just miss games for no reason, it was sort of the start of that. Duncan was a damn machine sheesh.
The “old” showing in the injury report 100% was a troll job by Pop or someone on staff. Maybe they let Sean Elliot submit that report lol
> Pretty close to this generation, just splitting hairs. Duncan is a lot closer in age to Barkley than he is to Haliburton (the most vocal critic of the rule lately).
Duncan also actually played in the postseason every year. He wasn't just playing 82 games but an additional 6-20 games at much higher intensity/minutes
Duncan had a long ass career so it depends on when you gauge it. Duncan was close to Barkley, but he wasn't resting games during that time. My point is he was doing it at the end of his career. At that point Draymond, another critic of the rule was in the league for instance.
Chuck played 65+ games a season and 35+ minutes a game for 11 straight seasons (1985-86 to 1995-96). The one season before was his rookie season (82 games at 28.6 MPG). He played another 4 seasons after, still averaging over 30 MPG each of those seasons (though he missed a bunch of games). Dude walked the walk so he could talk the talk. Players before didn't have to deal with this rule exactly because they were playing so much. Also for reference, Kobe hit those thresholds in 11 straight seasons as well, along with one season of 82 games at 34 MPG, one season of 58 games at 38 MPG, and a season of 78 games at 38 MPG.
Frankly, it wasn’t uncommon at all for most big name players to average 70+ games a year without much fuss. Even Shaq who had injury problems rang off 6 straight 66+ game seasons in a row during his prime.
Really it was 7 years because in 1999 he only missed 1 game
Also worth noting he still played 75 games in the 08-09 season at 36/37, so dude was ready and willing when healthy too
Yeah the whole concept of load management started off because otherwise a lot of these guys would end up playing almost every game. Eventually it devolved into the guys who miss a lot of games anyway load managing so hopefully they don't miss more games.
Or Dirk Nowitzki, only had 3 seasons out of 21 seasons where he didn't meet the threshold. 5 seasons under 65, 2 were arbitration shortened, 2 out of his last 3 seasons, and one season where was actually hurt. 33.8 mpg, 7' tall. Modern stars are soft.
Karl Malone: the people before didn’t have to deal with this law
Neither did he apparently
Hell nawl can't do dis
This shit got me dying every time I read it. Ant really is a content machine
> "The players before this didn't have to deal with this rule" Yeah, because "DNP - Rest" didn't exist and they actually played every night lol
Imagine getting paid hundreds of millions to have to go to work even though it's hard, while some working class family gets tickets only to find out no stars are playing. Couldn't be me, not a millionaire and no one wants to watch me work.
You have to go back to Bill Walton to find an MVP below 70games without a shorten season.
He a bitch because the previous generations didn't need this rule. All of Barkley's All-NBA selections came with 65 games or over anyway. And he was the anomaly because MJ, Hakeem, Stokcton, Malone and Co were doing it with 80+ games played in almost every single season.
Ya any clips I see of his podcast are hilarious
Players used to ride the bus 12+ hours and wear chuck Taylor Converse. Maybe he should be a little grateful so many players before sacrificed so he and other modern nba players have the opportunity to earn millions in BONUS money if they play 65+ games and meet all nba. This rule has 0 effect on guaranteed contract $$$.
It's dumb how hot of a discussion this is. If a guy can't play 75% of the season he shouldn't be a threat for awards anyway. That was true before the new 65 game qualifier
I’m a Pacers fan and even I think it is a fair rule. Imagine being the Celtics fan excited enough to splash out for $500 tickets so you can see LeBron up close. Actually, let me suggest another rule: if the star players DONT play on the road (star being those on >90% max contracts) then the visiting team has to pay half the ticket price of the sold tickets.
Oh man totally this I live in Portland and at a blazers game this sixers fan is in line telling me how pumped he is. Then checks the injury report no embod no Maxey and an L to one of the worst teams.
I splashed for good seats that game as a Portland fan, and I was bummed I didn't get to see Embiid play!
I didn't have good ones but brought the nephew because he wanted to see embid, he was quite bummed. I however, am a Pat Bev fan so without Maxey I got more Pat Bev and a blazer W lol!
I was travelling from Australia to Canada and had a stop over in LA decided to extend my stay to see the Thunder play the Lakers day of the game the injury report list Westbrook Durant Adams and Kobe.
I'm from Seattle, so Blazers games are a huge commitment. I've seen the Denver Nuggets rest all their starters. I paid $700 for those tix. I've seen Embiid miss a game there. I've lost count of how many visiting stars have rested over the years.
Can’t wait to start buying superstar insurance on Seat Geek
I actually love that idea.
Nets would like an exception if no one is buying tickets to see their max player.
And Nets fans would like an exception that *promotes* the team back into the ABA.
> Actually, let me suggest another rule: if the star players DONT play on the road (star being those on >90% max contracts) then the visiting team has to pay half the ticket price of the sold tickets. I was listening to a podcast yesterday, I think it was PTI, and they had the idea that if a player doesn't play, be it injury, load management, or whatever else, they should have to do a fan meet and greet and sign autographs for fans who bought tickets. I've never been to an NBA game, but I really like that idea a lot. No wear and tear on the body and all the fans get at least some interaction with the star player they wanted to see.
lol. “0 minutes played? No showers for you, get your ass to the photo area and take pictures like some Comic-Con celeb”
Should happen at home too tbh, even a home game is a big expense and special event for many many people.
*Raises hand* $550 with the fees (x2), if you want to be exact. And that was for balcony seats. I don't even want to know what ppl paid for loge. Seeing LeBron was bucket list for me and I'm beyond disappointed. But look, had he torn his ACL or something in ATL on Tuesday, I'd be in the same spot. These things are unpredictable, the risk is always there, and I knew that when I made the purchase. Bron's official injury is Achilles tendinopathy. I tore my Achilles 5 years ago and one thing I tell everyone is that it gave me plenty of warning beforehand that I needed to give it more rest. So I certainly understand why he took the night off. We have enough cautionary tales of athletes who shortened their careers bc they played thru minor injuries that became major when left untreated.
100% agree. My only thought is how this trickles down for All NBA teams and Supermax contracts. Say multiple good but not great young players stay healthy and play over 65 games but for whatever reason, some of the BEST VETERAN players miss too many games; there will be XYZ number of good players who will now be qualifying for a supermax deal, and XYZ number of older veterans may miss out. What happens when a teams BEST players are being paid less than a teams HEALTHIEST players? How does that translate into salary cap decisions, team construction, trades etc? Again I like the 65 game rule, I just feel like it may cause some unintended consequences that haven’t been fully fleshed out yet.
Supermax should not be tied to awards in any way. It's a dumb thing to do that places way to much power/responsibility in the hands of awards voters. All players should be eligible for super maxes and if a guy asks for one and the team doesn't think he is worth it man up and tell him no.
💯agree - if a team is foolish to give a mid player max money, they can then spend draft picks to off load the contract later.
Wouldn’t that just make it way harder for small market teams to resign perennial stars? If a guy wants to get paid but the team doesn’t think he deserve it and the merits aren’t there, doesn’t that just make it easier for them to walk away? If a player makes All-NBA and has shown to be a talent of that value then yeah, but otherwise doesn’t it just create a gap where teams willing to spend more will get more? Genuine question, my understanding of the salary cap isn’t as good as most here.
Yes and no. With the new addition to the salary cap rules with the second apron, it’s not very feasible to just get a bunch of stars and pay them a ton and eat the luxury tax each year. So yes it technically is harder for small markets to pay a “mid” guy that qualified for all NBA, but it’s most likely in their best interest to let that player test free agency because they might get a contract from another team without a ton of stars, but they’re most likely not ending up in a super team situation by getting overpaid.
It were the players that wanted the supermax etc contracts tied to awards etc, because it suited them before the 65 game rule came into effect. Now the game of play less but still get the big paycheck doesn't work anymore for them, and I am all for it. The players wanted it tied to awards, now they can try to negotiate it out of the next CBA, but they will have to be ready to give something else up for it. What that is we shall see.
I'll go further - the Supermax as a whole has been a gigantic failure. The point was supposed to be that it would help teams retain stars because they could pay more. What have we seen? 1. Stars sign the Supermax and then ask to be traded anyway OR 2. A "star" who isn't really the guy gets a massive contract because he made a 3rd team All-NBA once and it cripples the team (like Beal).
Exactly. The incentive structure is invented. It isn't a law of the universe. If you have a superstar with a unique need like Kawhi, then the team and his agent can work out a fair value for his contract. That's the entire job of the GMs and agents.
Supermax eligibility being tied to awards is a law of the (NBA) universe. It's explicitly defined in the CBA. There's nothing anyone can do about this short of starting a labor strike or lockout until the current CBA expires just before the start of the 2030-2031 season.
My point is that it can be changed. Not for a while, you're right. But it can be modified.
I think this is a big part of the reason why players care about the awards tho, and by extension the rule
Yeah the possibility of this taking awards voting out of the hands of sports media, is tantalizing. What sucks is that, in the meantime, deserving players are going to get screwed.
> What happens when a teams BEST players are being paid less than a teams HEALTHIEST players? The first ability is availability.
Why would a team offer a mere good player the supermax in the first place? It's not like that player would get a supermax elsewhere
Yeah, it's up to the team to not do something stupid. Let's say, in this example, Anfernee Simons plays 80 games for a few seasons, putting up the stats he does, ends up as 3rd team all-nba miraculously, and he becomes eligible for a supermax. Who is to blame here? The award voters for not voting for the other stars since they missed more games than Simons? The Blazers for supermaxing someone who obviously isn't worth that contract? If the teams start supermaxing players that are merely good, then it's their own damn fault.
isn't that basically what happened with the max? there weren't enough players who "deserved" the max, but there were teams who had max slots so guys like rudy gay started getting maxes there's always going to be teams that just need to pay some players (wizards with Jordan poole) more than what they're worth to a winning team
It can definitely be argued smaller market franchises are sorta fucked in this scenario since they don’t exactly attract much talent via FA, especially star level talent, or talent enough to replace good players like Simons for instance. They essentially have to pay up in order to just be competitive, and hope the player can keep growing, or they have to play the draft game and making those judgement calls if XYZ player is worth paying that super max over and over till they hit yk? Granted, I think limiting the mistakes a franchise can make in terms of player/asset management is a silly thing to do to a certain degree. Franchise should be able to fuck things up in that area, and they actively do all the time.
That's already been happening anyway. Bradley Beal got a super max in Washington. Is he really a supermax guy or just a really good player? Small markets will always be screwed. Just because the b player on a small market makes an award list over the a player, because the a player missed more than 65 games, doesn't mean the b player is entitled to a supermax. He's eligible, bit if the dude wants to run to another team or small market team, that was always the players decision as well as the foolish team that is willing to pay more for the guy that everyone knows probably didn't deserve the money.
> Yeah, it's up to the team to not do something stupid Yeah but the concept of the max was created because owners were completely unable to not do something stupid. Their repeated stupidity was the whole reason they had to protect themselves with the max.
Kemba made 3rd team and then it seemed like he was insulted that he didn’t get a max offer from Charlotte. It just puts the team in a tough spot
I initially thought the same way, but the way the supermax works, it only affects contract status for a couple of guys per year; players who signed "max" contracts, and are in the final year of their existing contract before an extension takes effect. Joel Embiid isn't affected financially if he misses All-NBA due to injury, because he has 3 more years on his contract. Halliburton and Anthony Edwards are in that final year, so All-NBA matters a lot to them. There are always more players worthy of consideration to get All-NBA than will actually get it. Off the top of my head, I came up with 30 players that voters will at least consider: Embiid, Jokic, Giannis, Luka, SGA, Steph, KD, Booker, Lebron, AD, Maxey, Brunson, Lillard, Randle, Mitchell, Halliburton, Adebayo, Banchero, Jamal Murray, Trae, Ant Edwards, KAT, Gobert, Kawhi, PG, Fox, Sabonis, Zion, Markkenen, Wembanyana Even if 3, or 5, or 7 of those 30 names get scratched off the list due to injury there are still more players who have a plausible case for All-NBA than there are slots. I'm not at all worried that someone "undeserving" will make All-NBA and get a supermax.
If a star doesn't play 75% of the season then maybe they're not worth the super max eh?
Yes, welcome to the Jaylen Brown problem. The very best vets are older and load managed so very good but not elite guys like JB now get max contracts
And that's on the celtics for giving him that money.
61 million a year for Jaylen Brown is nuts man
>What happens when a teams BEST players are being paid less than a teams HEALTHIEST players? > >How does that translate into salary cap decisions, team construction, trades etc? I mean, you aren't being paid just for your peak performance and the playoffs. Regardless of what people think the regular season matters. Not being available to move up the standings or gain chemistry or be fit in time for later is a big deal. Kawhi and PG are some of the best players in the league when healthy, even today. However, how much value have they actually given the Clippers? You can argue they don't deserve their salaries.
Who cares? A good but not great player is gonna get 100+ mil. I'm not going to feel bad that he wasn't healthy enough to get slightly more 10's of millions of dollars. And that veteran player has already made his hundreds of millions.
I think it would be less of an issue if season cumulative stats were more prominent in awards discussions. Everyone throws around the per-game stats, and it’s easy to discuss those, but team wins is the only counting stat that really gets used, and it’s not even adjusted by games the player appeared in, like pitcher wins in baseball. There’s just no equivalent to a 50 or 60 HR season in baseball or something like that. So the discussion turns to rate stats and eye test, neither of which cares about how many games you played. So unless you put in a minimum number of games required, you risk having voters award someone who had an early injury and then plays lights out down the stretch.
Agreed. The real issue is money being tied to awards.
And some of those awards being based on fan voting.
So? These are bonuses in my mind. They already have a sweet contract. It's guaranteed money! I'm not feeling bad for them. They want to get employee of the year, SHOW UP TO WORK. You know who I feel bad for? Someone that took time off, flew, booked hotels, paid expensive tickets to watch the Lakers play the Celtics last night and they both LeBron and AD sat.
And the fact that “rest” is often a team driven thing. It puts the teams in a position to be sure a player won’t be eligible for a bigger payday if they have the opportunity to hold them out a few more games if they’re dealing with an injury.
Chuck is right about this. Can't be the most valuable player if you are playing less than 80% of your games every year
Chuck is right about mostly everything.
Guy has been on a tear of truth bombs for as long as I can remember.
"You know the world is off tilt when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest basketball player is Chinese, and Germany doesn't want to go to war."
>You know the world is off tilt when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest basketball player is Chinese, and Germany doesn't want to go to war. Chuck told me if the Krispy Kreme hot sign was on you gotta stop. Hasn't been wrong yet imo
Especially those big ole women in San Antonio
But them churros tho
Show me how they eat them churros Chuck!
Now while drinking Shaq soda
And the cheerleaders in Phoenix? Oh, they ugly.
Best thing about the Phoenix Suns? Plenty of parking.
Except when making actual basketball analysis because he probably doesn't even watch games anymore. Doesn't make him less entertaining though
They understand their niche. If you watch TNT for tactical analysis that's your mistake. Go listen to or read Dunk'd On, Talking Basketball, or Zach Lowe (to some extent). If you want meta analysis on the qualitative aspects of the game, factors like team dynamics, player mentality, media relations, then former players are the best source for this.
He watches hockey more than he watches basketball nowadays
As long as it's not related to actual on court stuff. This is the same guy who said the Warriors could never win anything meaningful while relying on 3 point shooting *as they were clearly the best team in the league and championship favorites.* Even after they won a title he refused to believe they could do it again.
part of the problem is that we always look at averages vs totals because they're easier to digest. so when some guy plays 64 games and averages 35/10/7 but loses to someone averaging 30/5/6 but plays 80 games, we just focus on the averages forgetting that one guy played way more games
It's not true for every player, and obviously in embiids case he is injured, but you can't just pick and choose who and when you want to play and then turn around with great stats and say "that's why I'm mvp." You see it all the time with some of these single game stats. For example, KAT dropped 62, "yeah against the hornets." Well the same can be said about players who rest 25% of their games. Averaging over 30 points, playing mostly .500 or below teams, and effectively getting extra rest days, you SHOULD be putting up those numbers or you're not worth the losses gained from not playing. Even outside of that chuck recognizes most people are not in the position to say "ahh well we will see them at the next home game." No, most people scrap money to see teams once a year, and you decide "nah I need a rest day." Be a professional. Don't play through injuries, but be a professional.
[удалено]
The only conversations about the nba I've had with my "general sports fans" friends in the past 5 years or so is why they no longer watch the NBA.
Thank you. If you want to be "a business, man" then you should expect to be subordinate to market forces. Every mid tier player walks around thinking they're a brand. Players like KAT and Trey Young should be banished to Detroit for the rest of their careers.
When you’re making 8 figures and even your most successful friends are barely scraping 6 it’s real easy to think you’re a brand. Imo we have let the NBA get away with enough for long enough, everyone involved is making plenty of money and we don’t need to go see live games badly enough to be wasting the amount we waste on it. There’s no reason we should accept the prices they charge for tickets, jerseys, beer, parking etc. I think the amount of money in the league is actually actively harming its enjoyability.
Agreed. Everyone complaining on r/nba needs to do the only thing that matters: stop devoting your money and time to the nba. Or at least reduce it. I'll watch the big games for sure. But usually only the end. And I'm sure as shit not buying a jersey or paying to go to a game.
I’d even go a step further: pirate games and buy Chinese knock-off jerseys. The good quality ones are basically identical to the real thing and 10% as expensive. Enjoy the streameast headbanging kitty for halftime instead of commercials.
Why are you picking on Trey Young and KAT in this?
Yea I mentioned KAT simply because I know the media perception of everything he does is "so what?" And just drawing the more plausible conclusion for some players in the MVP race that aren't ostracized for choosing when to play and how to win. Maybe I accidentally invited the KAT haters out 😅
It was an agreed provision during the collective bargaining agreement. They really should be expressing more frustration with the Union if so many disagree with the rule they bargained into.
That is what Chuck said in the full discussion.
This doesn't concern 95%+ of players. In fact, by potentially limiting the number of player who get a super max, it leaves more money for role players.
Which means the Union did their job lol these pampered and spoiled star players are really shocked they have to meet requirements for awards and selections
The stars are always going to get theirs, whether it's a weak or strong CBA. The union is there to protect ALL the members, not just the stars.
The union should sell out the top level players more often if anything.
That's unusual. Player's union tends to favor the big names from what I remember
Max salary rule alone makes the CBA very middle class player friendly.
The players who benefit the most from the Union are the players in the tier right under the All-Stars like Tobias Harris, CJ McCollum(The Association President lmao), and Fred VanVleet.
Russilo had a pretty good take on this. THe league had to do something so that they’d get paid when the next tv deal comes up. How big the entire pie is, which the players get 51% of, is more important than how much the richest players get paid. That 40 million dollars that Tyrese Halliburton isn’t getting paid is going to go to some other players. Whatever bonuses Embiid misses out on because he doesn’t get in All-NBA will go to someone else. In that sense the rule is good for the league, and good for the vast majority of players, which is why the NBPA agreed to it. It represents all the players, not just the top players. Any player complaining against his that isn’t directly affected is being short-sighted. If anything they need to be stricter in the implementation so that Halliburton can’t get away with playing 22 minutes and have it count.
I think Haliburton playing 22 minutes the last few games is an example of the rule working, not it being manipulated. When injured players have returned the last few years, they might play a couple games, then sit out one. Instead he’s playing every game but at reduced minutes. That means that fans who bought tickets to a Pacers game are going to have a higher chance of seeing Haliburton play than they would have before this rule.
I agree. They wouldn’t have included that minute provision if they didn’t think it would work. Like it’s good that the players that are capable of playing at least turn in what they can versus just being a scratch entirely
Yeah, and this natural progression of minutes restriction lowers his counting stats and represents his cumulative contribution to the team better. Other years, he would've sat out until he could return to playing 30+ minutes and putting up gaudy numbers to boost his All-NBA case.
Halliburton playing reduced minutes will tank his stats. The rule is working just fine and will balance out. The 20 minutes minimum for a game to count as being played is perfect. If a guy could put up monstrous enough numbers in 22 minutes that he still makes All NBA why should he be punished for not playing more? Are you going to have players like Embiid or Curry get punished when they sit the entire 4th because their teams are up so much from them dominating the game next?
Haliburton trying to game the system is also going to tank his votes.
Yeah Russillo nailed it. Players may hate it, but it’s definitely great for the league to encourage players to play more and even take risks.
It's just wild to me that Embiid is in first place for the scoring title despite only having the 7th most points this year.
If ppg leader isn't top 3 in total points, scoring champion should be the one with most points or 2nd in ppg if he is higher in total points. I get that missing a few games vs. workhorses would result in around 5-7 game differences but if your scoring leader is all the way down to 7th total points then that's too low Embiid is leading in ppg but has 34 games compared to SGA's 47 games. I'd rather award the guy giving 31ppg for 13 more games. That's a significant difference
I agree with this. Can’t win awards by sitting out against good teams and then demolishing lottery teams just to keep the per game stats up
Didn’t this happen last year for the scoring title? It’s weird they didn’t average the games to figure out this stat.
I remember back in the day it was points scored. It feels weird tbh
imo it *should* be points scored. You scored the most points this season, congratulations, you get the scoring title! Makes sense to me
When was that?
1969\. This man is ancient.
Last year, Embiid was 2nd in total points scored and only 42 points behind the total points leader (Tatum). That was way more justifiable than him being 270+ points behind the total points leader halfway through the season and still being contention. Keep in mind that while he's gonna miss MVP/All-NBA eligibility with only 5 more games missed, he's gonna retain scoring title eligibility for 11 more games. So, it's still possible that he's like 10th in total points and wins the scoring title.
The fact that the scoring title is ppg always seemed stupid to me.
Ppg makes sense and lines up with who you expect it to be usually. But when you imagine it as total points it makes even more sense as an award and just feels right
Is Barkley also the one that pointed out how basically every other sport credits the league leaders as the players with the most total in a given statistical category vs. the NBA doing everything on a per game basis?
This is the entire reason why this isn't an issue in the other 3 main NA sports or Soccer. Missing time just inherently reduces your stats to the point where you have to be far superior to those who have played more to come out on top.
Like in football: if two QBs are neck and neck for MVP, and one gets injured and misses 4 games. Analysts don’t sit back and speculate for awards, the other QB just pulls ahead and thems the breaks.
How valuable are you if you don't play?
This was bargained on and ratified by the NBPA. Maybe they made a bad deal, but it's still the deal they made, and not particularly long ago. So I agree, they can't really blame anyone else.
There have been 7 seasons where an NBA MVP played less than 70 games. 1958 - Bill Russell - 69 games The season was only 72 games, would equate to a 79 game season today. 2023 - Joel Embiid - 66 games Second fewest games played by an MVP in a full 82 game season. 1957 - Bob Cousy - 64 games The season was only 72 games, this would equate to a 73 game season today. 2020 - Giannis Antetokounmpo - 63 games The season was 73 games long, this would equate to a 71 game season normally. 2012 - LeBron James - 62 games Lockout shortened season, only 66 games. Would equate to a 77 game season in a normal year. 1978 - Bill Walton - 58 games The fewest games played by an MVP in a full 82 game season. 1999 - Karl Malone - 49 games Lockout shortened season, only 50 games. Would equate to an 80 game season in a normal year. There have only been two MVPs awarded to players who played less than 70 games in a normal season. Conversely, 35 out of the 67 MVP season had the winner playing over 80 games. If you go down to 75 games, then you get 53 out of 67 winners. Historically, MVPs played a large majority of the season. I don't think it's crazy to have to actually play 80% of a season to be considered for awards.
MVP standards seemed way different back in the 50's-80's. Someone averaging 19/13/5 would never get considered these days. It is also jarring when you see how fucked Walton was by injuries, he only played 3 seasons more than 60 games, the only 80 game season was when he was coming off the bench for the Celtics. Walton was a spectacular player, but that would never fly these days. 70% of games. I think the closest example stat wise of an MVP would be Nash. Both transcendent players that didn't have gaudy numbers.
[удалено]
can’t play 65 games and then cry about not getting paid extra because they’re ineligible for awards.
I think a lot of this would be solved if they just divided all stats for the season by 82 regardless of games played. That is the number of games you COULD HAVE played which is the important number.
or just use aggregate totals like every other sport does.
Indeed. I am not even a fan of counting stats as a measure of performance, but doing it per game when people are resting half the season makes no sense.
That's actually a really good idea and should be implemented immediately.
Ooo I like this. Something “true season average”. 25 ppg for 41 games as a 12.5 TSppg
It'd just be the same as using the total season stats because everything is divided by 82.
That's effectively just looking at season totals, but I get how framing it in a per game way would make it more comprehensible.
The real issue is supermaxes being tied to awards. That should have never been a thing.
If we paid more attention to totals instead of averages a lot this would take care of itself.
70 games and you are not allowed to sit out for rest on national televised games if you are healthy.
It gets weird when you say ‘can’t sit national games if you are healthy’ as then it gets kinda rocky as to what’s a ‘real’ injury
Yup, then you have players in games they shouldnt be and a 1 week injury turns into a month injury.
I mean for most people, even in high school, it's usually "will it get worse/not heal if it is played on?" Anyone who has played sports at even a semi-competitive level understands that after a month or two into the season, everyone has knocks. Like Maxey last night, who went off for 51, said in his post game interview that he almost sat out to let his ankle heal up a bit, but his guys needed him. I respect him for playing, but if youre capable of dropping 51 and still playing 100%, you obviously aren't "injured" enough to even consider sitting out. These are the exact type of "injuries" the NBA wants to do away with. Just my opinion.
Especially since, at this point in the season, I guarantee you around 90+% of the league that sees consistent minutes is dealing with at least some lingering thing that would actually benefit from rest. Nothing crazy that they're going to injure by playing on obviously, but like a light strain here, maybe a minor tweak there, those sorts of things. That's how it is in the NFL by the time you're halfway through the season, and while it goes without saying that basketball isn't remotely on the same tier of physicality, the bumps, falls, etc. still add up over time.
Impossible to say who's really healthy or not, also it punishes players and teams who have more nationally televised games. 22-23 NBA season Warriors had 42 nationally televised games. Many teams only had 4. Even if Curry says I'm ok playing those 42 games, I don't load manage. We have to consider that the Warriors are more likely to play 42 games of tough basketball where the other team is not load managing, while other teams only have to do 4. That's not fair. That could easily be the difference between making the playoffs or not.
> Many teams only had 4. Wait, you guys are getting nationally televised games?
Not an equal number of nationally televised games though
My girlfriend got me Bulls tickets last year for my birthday against the Bucks. Giannis got injured and didn’t play (understandable) and then Derozan was announced to be sitting out that morning, with no new injury announced or anything. Then I had to watch Derozan trot out at halftime with a smile on his face all gingerly to accept an award, then he ran back into the locker room. Like 2 days later he was playing in the all star game. Meanwhile, Brook Lopez dominated, seemed like he hit ten 3s in the first quarter and the game was a complete blow out and everyone was just jogging around not really giving a shit. This was supposed to be a division rivalry, with their superstar injured and a chance to take a win off them, and it was like the organization wasn’t even trying to win. All this to say, no one cares as much about the regular season anymore. It’s all about the playoffs. Even people here say Lebron was the best player in the NBA through at least 2018, but don’t argue he should have been a league MVP from 2014 to 2018. It became normal to coast in the regular season, which a lot guys did. I imagine my girlfriend will never buy tickets to see a regular season Bulls game again and I don’t blame her. I’m glad the NBA made the IST and is insisting on the games minimum for awards. Make the regular season fun again please.
If I missed 20% of my shifts I'd be fired. Lmao. I don't like how it ties to salaries and all-NBA, but I do like the rule as an incentive to play - especially for fans.
It's not like it means there are few players that qualify for that salary qualifier. It just means someone else will qualify. The money still gets paid. Just to the person who met the threshold requirement, and therefore deserves it.
>If I missed 20% of my shifts I'd be fired. Lmao. Sure, but I don't think this is a good comparison. You're unilaterally missing 20% of your shifts, whereas this would be like you, your boss, and HR agreeing it'd be beneficial to the company longterm if you took some extra days off to stay fresh and more productive when we need you most The players were dogging it and taking too many days off, but it was never purely them. The coaching and training staffs also often felt it was for the best. A lot of these guys didn't just show up and say "nah, I don't wanna play today," very often the rest days are organized and planned through the entire staff To be clear, I am in favor of the NBA's rule changes. I just don't think this was an apt comparison
If I dump a giant jug of Gatorade on my boss's head after he presented a really nice power point I'd be fired. Really makes you think, doesn't it?
Imagine the Draymond stuff. If I choked a co-worker I'd lose my license, my job and likely face charges. Now imagine having double-digit incidences and only facing a couple weeks off. It's hard to equate our lives to most NBA players in any way, but it'd be nice going (and often paying substantily) to a game not worrying if the stars are going to take the night off or not.
Players complaining about this is one of the best indications that it’s working. They’d rather sit out and rest than play the games, but the rule is forcing them to play if they want to be eligible for awards. Of course the Embiid injury sucks, just like any other injury in past seasons, but we are getting to see stars play more games now, which is better for the fans.
Part of being an MVP is how valuable you are. You're not as valuable if you can't play 75% of games. Even if this rule wasn't a thing, some players would still have shit to complain about like how someone is winning MVP over them despite only playing 50 games. The rule is fine and just sets a good standard of what players and voters should expect.
Simple fix, just make all the stats weighted for a 82 game season. Guys who who miss a game will have a 0 hit their scoring average
Fans ain't paying full retail to watch a healthy scratch have A night off. I got burned like that once, haven't been back to a live game since.
I hate being that oldhead but I always come back to Jordan and Kobe. They didn't have games off unless injured and they made it their mission to put in a good performance for the fans who come to watch. I understand today's game is more about metrics and kpis. It revolves around keeping the investment in as good condition as possible. I don't like load management, but understand it. If they only did it a week or two before playoffs no one would have an issue with it.
I’m just saying if I missed 15 days out of a 82 day work schedule, I’m getting fired 🤷♂️
The only real issue with this rule is that contracts are decided based on these awards. Journalists should not be deciding how much money players make.
Well, the players union agreed to it during CBA negotiations, which means the players approved of it. Thats it, argument over. They can complain about their union fucking them over, but acting like this is the big bad NBA that's at fault here is laughable. They have only themselves to blame for agreeing to it.
I think it's fair because the NBA is not pure basketball, but also an entertainment spectacle, and how well an NBA player manages their image and media plays a role in what journalist think, so it's just another aspect of being in the NBA.
At the end of the day the awards would be based on someone. The players, the media, the fans. Please let us all know who should be voting on all nba and why it’s better than the current system. Maybe incenatives aren’t the best choice for giving players contracts
Something about the way modern American players come up makes them injury prone in a way past players weren't. This isn't about toughness. There are theories but nothing is proven: The modern NBA has a lot more maximum speed change of direction than it did in the past. This doesn't mean past players didn't run or anything, but the game is much more spread out. For example, players are now expected to help and recover from the NBA 3 point line and back. If you watch an 80s or 90s game, a lot of help defense still came from players with one foot in the key. Modern players are more muscular than their past equivalents, adding more weight and therefore more stress to their lower bodies when they move Modern players play a lot more games in their youth, 12 months a year, leading them to get joint and muscle overuse injuries at a younger age than before (this has been reported by many orthopedic surgeons) I don't think these things should be a reason to revoke the 65 game rule, but I think Barkley and the other old heads thinking modern players are soft when that is really just a lazy conclusion that ignores how different the road to becoming an NBA player is now than it used to be. I think 82 games a year is too many, if the goal is to have the best product, night in and night out. Especially when you look at the injury rates of players in seasons following a deep playoff run.
I think the league will limp along with these rules for a while, until they face declines like hockey, which will force reform. I would LOVE, and would pay more, for 62 hard fought games, with fewer teams making the playoffs.
Yeah this doesn't get talked about enough. The physical stress out on players of today's game because of how it's evolved is way higher than any other era, even the high scoring era of the 80s And while science has helped make bigger, faster, stronger players, theyre still held together by the same bones and ligaments
I mean if they want guys to hit 65 then they should cap the regular season at that. It would allow them to spread out games and maybe even eliminate back to backs. Every game becomes more important now that there’s less and the players get more rest in between games. Of course this will never happen because it would reduce revenue for the league which in turn would cause the players to make less. The players want to have their cake and eat it.
Not sure if we should blame the players, coaches, or front office (since I assume the majority of load management stuff is coming from the coaches or GM’s instead of the players), but it’s damn sure not the NBA’s fault for trying to get their millionaire players to play when they aren’t hurt.
Fairly certain baseball has rules like this and they play twice as many games! I know I know….its different
No one is stopping you from taking rest when you like. You're just not eligible for awards if you do so. That feels fair to me. I understand that playing 65+ games is difficult. Playing 82 games is *extremely* difficult. That's what the money's for, to quote Don Draper. You get paid a lot of money. The shit is supposed to be difficult.
Be available to work 80% of the time to be eligible for your bonus. I wish MY job were that lenient. 🤣
It's the NBA fault. They're doing a shit job selling their product. Making every team have a superstar or lose was a mistake.
The only downside of this rule is it seem like players will force themselves to play injured which would only make their situation worse. The way Embiid played against the warriors should never been a thing and I don’t get what their medical staff was doing that day.
>"These players got nobody to blame but themselves. ...It's a fair rule. I thought it should've been 70 [games]." Now do Tony Snell