Adam Silver talks load management, calls out Spurs executive

[Castle Black]

Silver is right to call out the Spurs for this.
Popovich and the Spurs are the ones who perfected this strategy along with tanking, two of the most frustrating and shameful strategies for NBA teams to adopt in my opinion.

Hilarious coming from a Lakers fan whose team literally never has to go through a rebuild because they just buy their talent and their championships . Get real.

Spurs really only tanked once in the past 50 years — in 1988. It landed us David Robinson. In 1996, David Robinson only played the first 6 games of the season before he broke his foot and was sidelined the rest of the year. He also had a bad back at the time. Our supporting cast around him was crap outside of Sean Elliott, who was still a role player. THAT is why we sucked in ‘96 and ended up winning the lottery ‘97. Yes, the Spurs talked about bringing Robinson back with 15 games or so left in the season, but we were horrible at that point and were not in playoff contention. Would’ve made no sense to potentially give up Tim Duncan for a handful of meaningless regular season wins.

[Castle Black]

And don’t even get me started on how the Lakers were basically gifted Magic Johnson (and James Worthy, to a lesser degree) in the draft. The Lakers had finished with the 3rd best record in the West in 1978, yet due to the stupid rules back then, teams were awarded draft picks when they lost a Free Agent to another team.

The Utah Jazz signed Gail Goodrich away from the Lakers in 1978, so the Lakers were just given Utah’s 1st Round Draft Pick as compensation, and that ended up becoming the 1st Overall Pick in the 1979 draft after the Jazz sucked that year. They got Magic Johnson to pair with Kareem and the rest is history.

In 1980, Ted Stepien — of the Stepien Rule fame — bought the Cleveland Cavaliers. Stepien was, to put it mildly, not a fan of the NBA Draft or young college players, and immediately began to trade away the Cavs’ draft picks. The team swapped multiple future 1st-Round Picks (including 1982) for journeymen players who never amounted to much. The Lakers once again received the Cavs 1st Round Draft Pick in exchange for no-name players. Then the Lakers “won” a coin-flip with the Clippers to get the 1st Overall Pick, which they used to select James Worthy. The NBA literally changed the rules after this (now known as The Stepien Rule) to disallow these types of trades so that teams couldn’t get robbed blind like this anymore .

[G R E Y]

If one of the best most successful organization decides to rest player maybe instead of blaming them you take heed. The season is too long for the amount of specialization and off season training it now takes to be a top level NBA player. And quite frankly the vast majority of the fan base can't realistically consume the entire 82 +games a year of their on favorite team.

They were successful because they had Tim Duncan and all the way through year 14 year of his career he was playing 75+ games a season.

They were managing his minutes just like all old stars get managed. It was Kawhi who really took load management to the next level and started wanting random "sick days". This load management is like remote work, it doesn't work in all cases......

You need stars to win championships of course. But you also need a competent FO to put and keep the stars in the best position to win.

See, for example, LBJ's first stint with the Cavs as a contrast.

LBJ, by the way, is the ironman contrast to the load management discussion. Like him or not, he's one of the most durable athletes in the game. Good counterpoint to other stars who sit out.

[G R E Y]

At least the Spurs were always honest about it and said they needed the rest so 'fine us'.

None of these fake injuries that most other teams have stated.

Well, the injuries aren't always fake persay, they just don't actually require having to sit, they are playable injuries.

They are a response to the fines for rest. There's no need to be defensive about it as Spurs fans, Spurs were trend setters, that's something to be proud of.

Really don't get the impression that Phreak was being defensive. Fact is, Spurs were fined heavily for blatant rest. Fact also is, teams sit players under league approved 'reasons' so as long as these are stated well enough in advance; you can actually rest up to three players without fines.

The intent back then wasn't to set trends but preserve players who consistently had longer runs than those of other teams.

And as Blame Rasho pointed out it was hugely disingenuous of Silver to ignore the context of Spurs sitting out star players. It's really not the same thing as what's happening today.

[Clay Davis]

Silver is right to call out the Spurs for this.
Popovich and the Spurs are the ones who perfected this strategy along with tanking, two of the most frustrating and shameful strategies for NBA teams to adopt in my opinion.

Hilarious coming from a Lakers fan whose team literally never has to go through a rebuild because they just buy their talent and their championships . Get real.

Spurs really only tanked once in the past 40 years — in 1988. It landed us David Robinson. In 1996, David Robinson only played the first 6 games of the season before he broke his foot and was sidelined the rest of the year. He also had a bad back at the time. Our supporting cast around him was crap outside of Sean Elliott, who was still a role player. THAT is why se sucked in ‘96 and ended up winning the lottery ‘97. Yes, the Spurs talked about bringing Robinson back with 15 games or so left in the season, but we were horrible at that point and were not in playoff contention. Would’ve made no sense to potentially give up Tim Duncan for a handful of meaningless regular season wins.

There's no way that dude wasn't trolling you lol

[ConSarnit]

The NBA is in a tough spot.

1. Modern research shows rest lowers injury risk and improves recovery.
2. 53% of the NBA makes the playoffs every year so there isn't much cost.
3. NBA revenue doesn't scale linearly because removing 1 or even 10 games won't impact TV ratings.

The NBA could try to increase the reward for doing well in the RS/cost for doing poorly.
Option: The NBA could increase the cost for resting by eliminating playoff spots. As an example, 6 teams makes the playoffs in each conference. There is a play-in game for the final spot.

Fans complain about the predictability of the NBA playoffs and option 1 increases it. Option 1 eliminates 4 first round series which hurts TV.

I actually like option and think it would reduce tanking while keeping enough teams playoff viable fans still pay attention.

People are putting the blame on the wrong people. It’s not the players that are insisting on load management, it’s top down. Like you said teams/research is smarter and know that rest is valuable, especially when it might mean 2 more playoff games that are worth $10m to a franchise. This wasn’t some player empowerment thing, it’s science. These are billion dollar franchises looking for an edge any way they can get it.

I think they wouldn’t want to remove playoff games because it’s too much revenue. That would punish everyone.

What they should do (but won’t): with the new tv deal soon (est. 2.5x current deal) now is the perfect time to reduce the schedule to 70-72 games (spread across the same amount of time). No b2b or 4 games in 5 nights anymore. They’d take a hit financially but would more than make up for it with the new tv money. Everyone stays rich (and probably gets slightly richer) but not as rich with the status quo. Of course, they won’t do this because $.

There won’t be any changes because there is no penalty right now for players/owners. They are about to get a huge new tv deal so they will actually get rewarded. The only people getting screwed are families who bought tickets only to have the teams star get the night off and the NBA doesn’t really care about those people.

[John Murdoch]

Atleast Kawhi learned something from spurs

[G R E Y]

Really disappointed in Silver and sidestepping the CURRENT load-management issue, soft-footing it while stepping on the Spurs from so many years ago, as if the NBA doesn't allow up to three players to rest so long as you give a 'reason' well enough in advance so that betting sites can make their adjustments accordingly.

Has he called out any current players who take advantage of it? Or discussed teams 'coming to agreement' with vets to sit them out be it for tanking or giving the minutes to youth?

Maybe these were touched on and we don't know because there's just this snippet to go by. But even on that alone Silver isn't comparing like things: resting older players who consistently go on deep playoff runs, or managing minutes of the best players while using the bench more are player friendly and keep the team competitive at the right time. It's really not the same thing as the modern manifestation mentioned above.

[sp6r=underrated]

The NBA is in a tough spot.

1. Modern research shows rest lowers injury risk and improves recovery.
2. 53% of the NBA makes the playoffs every year so there isn't much cost.
3. NBA revenue doesn't scale linearly because removing 1 or even 10 games won't impact TV ratings.

The NBA could try to increase the reward for doing well in the RS/cost for doing poorly.
Option: The NBA could increase the cost for resting by eliminating playoff spots. As an example, 6 teams makes the playoffs in each conference. There is a play-in game for the final spot.

Fans complain about the predictability of the NBA playoffs and option 1 increases it. Option 1 eliminates 4 first round series which hurts TV.

I actually like option and think it would reduce tanking while keeping enough teams playoff viable fans still pay attention.

People are putting the blame on the wrong people. It’s not the players that are insisting on load management, it’s top down. Like you said teams/research is smarter and know that rest is valuable, especially when it might mean 2 more playoff games that are worth $10m to a franchise. This wasn’t some player empowerment thing, it’s science. These are billion dollar franchises looking for an edge any way they can get it.

I think they wouldn’t want to remove playoff games because it’s too much revenue. That would punish everyone.

What they should do (but won’t): with the new tv deal soon (est. 2.5x current deal) now is the perfect time to reduce the schedule to 70-72 games (spread across the same amount of time). No b2b or 4 games in 5 nights anymore. They’d take a hit financially but would more than make up for it with the new tv money. Everyone stays rich (and probably gets slightly richer) but not as rich with the status quo. Of course, they won’t do this because $.

There won’t be any changes because there is no penalty right now for players/owners. They are about to get a huge new tv deal so they will actually get rewarded. The only people getting screwed are families who bought tickets only to have the teams star get the night off and the NBA doesn’t really care about those people.

You're right this is team driven so you need to change the team incentives.

72 games wouldn't do anything because teams would still try to get the benefit of additional rest since it outweighs the almost non-existent cost of resting (chance of making playoffs/seeding). You'd need to dramatically decrease the # of game to get resting to stop or eliminate playoff spots. If you do the former or later the risk of missing out on the playoffs/or getting a terrible seed due to bad luck so teams won't rest.

I have to admit I'm fine watching games without stars. I think it is kind of interesting to be honest. But I know I am a minority on this. But I don't think 72 games will do anything. I could see teams picking rest days trying to set their guys up for a week without basketball.

[Castle Black]

The Rockets also tanked back-to-back years to land Ralph Sampson and Hakeem Olajuwon, lest we forget.

It worked out pretty well for them I’d say.

[MoneyTalks41890]

As a fan of a team that has intentionally tanked, though much of it has been overblown by folks with the memory of goldfish, it seems very odd to point to the Spurs here. Maybe it felt easier for Silver to do since it was a bit in the past rather than pointing to more recent and active examples of "load management" and tanking. I always thought it was funny when the Spurs would give Duncan a "DNP-Old" because it was honest but I could see the NBA not liking that. Hard to see how exaggerating an injury is preferable for the NBA in anything other than optics.

But the reality is that if a team has to eat some fines to keep their stars rested, that's preferable to playing by the letter of the rules and having a run down team when it matters in the playoffs. For example, it would be malpractice for the Suns to play CP3 30+ mpg for every game he's available this coming year.

[ConSarnit]

The NBA is in a tough spot.

1. Modern research shows rest lowers injury risk and improves recovery.
2. 53% of the NBA makes the playoffs every year so there isn't much cost.
3. NBA revenue doesn't scale linearly because removing 1 or even 10 games won't impact TV ratings.

The NBA could try to increase the reward for doing well in the RS/cost for doing poorly.
Option: The NBA could increase the cost for resting by eliminating playoff spots. As an example, 6 teams makes the playoffs in each conference. There is a play-in game for the final spot.

Fans complain about the predictability of the NBA playoffs and option 1 increases it. Option 1 eliminates 4 first round series which hurts TV.

I actually like option and think it would reduce tanking while keeping enough teams playoff viable fans still pay attention.

People are putting the blame on the wrong people. It’s not the players that are insisting on load management, it’s top down. Like you said teams/research is smarter and know that rest is valuable, especially when it might mean 2 more playoff games that are worth $10m to a franchise. This wasn’t some player empowerment thing, it’s science. These are billion dollar franchises looking for an edge any way they can get it.

I think they wouldn’t want to remove playoff games because it’s too much revenue. That would punish everyone.

What they should do (but won’t): with the new tv deal soon (est. 2.5x current deal) now is the perfect time to reduce the schedule to 70-72 games (spread across the same amount of time). No b2b or 4 games in 5 nights anymore. They’d take a hit financially but would more than make up for it with the new tv money. Everyone stays rich (and probably gets slightly richer) but not as rich with the status quo. Of course, they won’t do this because $.

There won’t be any changes because there is no penalty right now for players/owners. They are about to get a huge new tv deal so they will actually get rewarded. The only people getting screwed are families who bought tickets only to have the teams star get the night off and the NBA doesn’t really care about those people.

You're right this is team driven so you need to change the team incentives.

72 games wouldn't do anything because teams would still try to get the benefit of additional rest since it outweighs the almost non-existent cost of resting (chance of making playoffs/seeding). You'd need to dramatically decrease the # of game to get resting to stop or eliminate playoff spots. If you do the former or later the risk of missing out on the playoffs/or getting a terrible seed due to bad luck so teams won't rest.

I have to admit I'm fine watching games without stars. I think it is kind of interesting to be honest. But I know I am a minority on this. But I don't think 72 games will do anything. I could see teams picking rest days trying to set their guys up for a week without basketball.

Yeah, I have no idea what the number should be. I’ve heard 66 thrown around a lot. At some point it becomes too low and the loss of revenue is too large to stomach. It would be interesting to know what % of rest games are on b2b and if just by eliminating those it would minimize the issue.

They’ll never get rid of playoffs as they just added more cash grab games (play in). I would think teams already take playoffs into consideration when resting players as they are probably much more likely to rest against the bottom feeders (when even with resting the team still has a good chance to win).

You could try to punish teams but it just seems so difficult to police. Every rest day would just become “hamstring soreness”.

Someone probably needs to study when rest occurs (b2b, vs bottom feeders) to identify what could be done (because I don’t think they’ll ever lower the number of games).

[Jagic Mohnson]

Does the NBA still force players who sit out for a game to enter the injury list which means you must sit out the next 3 games. I recall Pat Riley wanted to load manage James Worthy from the All Star game but the NBA threatened to fine the Lakers or force James to miss the following 3 regular season games.

[sp6r=underrated]

As a fan of a team that has intentionally tanked, though much of it has been overblown by folks with the memory of goldfish, it seems very odd to point to the Spurs here. Maybe it felt easier for Silver to do since it was a bit in the past rather than pointing to more recent and active examples of "load management" and tanking. I always thought it was funny when the Spurs would give Duncan a "DNP-Old" because it was honest but I could see the NBA not liking that. Hard to see how exaggerating an injury is preferable for the NBA in anything other than optics.

But the reality is that if a team has to eat some fines to keep their stars rested, that's preferable to playing by the letter of the rules and having a run down team when it matters in the playoffs. For example, it would be malpractice for the Suns to play CP3 30+ mpg for every game he's available this coming year.

Silver really doesn't want to talk about tanking. Admitting your league has teams every year that intentionally forfeit games would be a disaster because people would instantly ask what do you on plan on doing about it. And there is no good answer for Silver.

Owners want the right to tank to get the best prospects. And if that means multiple years of terrible rosters so be it.

[G35]

The NBA is in a tough spot.

1. Modern research shows rest lowers injury risk and improves recovery.
2. 53% of the NBA makes the playoffs every year so there isn't much cost.
3. NBA revenue doesn't scale linearly because removing 1 or even 10 games won't impact TV ratings.

The NBA could try to increase the reward for doing well in the RS/cost for doing poorly.
Option: The NBA could increase the cost for resting by eliminating playoff spots. As an example, 6 teams makes the playoffs in each conference. There is a play-in game for the final spot.

Fans complain about the predictability of the NBA playoffs and option 1 increases it. Option 1 eliminates 4 first round series which hurts TV.

I actually like option and think it would reduce tanking while keeping enough teams playoff viable fans still pay attention.

It is true, but how does that affect motivation. More rest does not equal a better product. Same thing for the idea that "feeling better" will make a more productive employee.

We have seen what has happened on a mass scale when people stop working for a period of time; it is hard to get them to go back to work. You ever notice that after a long vacation, it is hard to come back to work and people say they need a vacation from their vacation.

There is a fine line between resting and maintaining performance......

[WaltFrazier]

I think this is a big problem for the league-it's one of the reasons I would reduce the schedule to 76 games, over the same time period. Somehow the teams would have to agree then to no more rest-and 6 fewer games would reduce injuries a bit, and improve the overall play

If you could eliminate back2backs within the 76 it would go a long way to eliminate resting guys

[Chinook]

The Spurs had a fantastic bullpen in the "Medium Three" era. They had guys like Mills, Blair, Joseph, De Colo and Baynes on their deep bench. Maybe fans didn't get to see their stars, but they saw a quality opponent who often would beat their team playing starters. The NBA probably shouldn't put as much emphasis on individual stars and put it more on the team if they want to keep fans from tying so much of their desire to see a game of a particular guy.

The Spurs managed an old team pretty perfectly. I do think it makes sense for the league to want a more transparent system for resting guys, and I think it's acceptable for the players and league to formalize when players can ask off. If the resting is in pursuit of wanting to win games, I don't think it's a bad thing. When it's in an effort to lose games, I think that should be nipped. The 2010's Spurs were a vintage vehicle that needed special maintenance. Guys like Lebron and Paul can still be stars if they're managed similarly. The league should want the most quality play possible.

[Johnny Bball]

Read on Twitter

?s=21&t=I_0f-5m4tWYUNbjEvoFUWw

Then do something about it you spineless twit!

Owners need to move on from Silver and his band-aid solutions of play-in tournaments and in-season BS tournaments instead of fixes for real issues.

[GreatWhiteStiff]

It's amazing to me that guys who get paid $20M/yr to play a six month season aren't able to show up for huge numbers of games.

I get resting your guys against Orlando or OKC a couple times per year, but the thing where guys take off 20 games is pathetic and should be a breach of contract.

Who takes off 20 games due to rest?

[druggas]

Yeah because Robinson's broken foot and his back injury (that later shortened his career) was faked during that so called 'tanking' year.

Lakers fans...

Not faked, Robinson was held back from returning so that Popovich could tank for Duncan after he fired Bob Hill.
1994-1996, Bob Hill: 124 wins-58 losses

It's as if Robinson was the only impactful Spur with injuries...

And how did Hill fare the rest of his NBA coaching career?

How did Popovich do before he got Timmy?