RealGM

When I look at the league's best this year it's kind of sad. Only Tatum and Sabonis played 70+ this year. Jokic had 69, Embiid had 66 and Giannis had 63 (!!!). Durant/Curry/LeBron/Kawhi/AD were all in the 50s.

The Giannis and Embiid seasons are notable because these will undoubtedly be talked about as all-time level seasons and amongst the best peaks of all time and they missed 23 and 20% of the games they could have played in respectively. When I compare these to previous ATGs it's just hard to measure up because if the levels of play are remotely comparable you want the guy who is on the court for close to 82 always.

Depends what you mean but I'd lean towards generally no.

I like the regular season in concept. It's the largest sample. Schedule's are relatively balanced.

But it means less in terms of the title/prestige/history. And as people have become more aware that it means less and they rest guys more and then it means even less. And so it doesn't make sense to run your stars into the ground for limited reward.

The 82 game season is a legacy of a time when live audiences were about the only income stream.

And it's a game nearly every other day plus travel around/across a continent on many in-between days.

Part of me would like it to remain constant for stats but play in is already junking up stats and now tournament games that are also RS games but also the random final that isn't ... (fwiw whilst I don't like that it junks up historical comps, I 'm inclined to compare things to league norms at the time ... still it does just make things harder).

Understandably people are reluctant to give up money that they already "have" .... and there is a reasonable (hard to be certain) assumption that less games means less money.

Personally I'd be happier with a proper league format playing each opponent twice. Without relegation you need something to keep weaker teams honest (probably financial stuff?, more lottery reform) in late season games. Every game counts toward something that matters and make a bigger deal about league position. Alternate/variant would be single elimination playoffs so it's short, clearly not necessarily the best team and not way out of whack with the sample size in terms of glory/prestige/celebration/legacy as the present system with the large sample as the qualifier. I think more time (less games plus season can expand to playoff space) be better rested and practice more and play better as teams in terms of strategy/tactics but also develop (technique) more and we cut out "schedule losses". It probably limits/removes tanking (with money on the table and as said probably a pretty flat lottery) which would be good (to be clear I don't hate tanking conceptually, it's a sensible reaction to incentives ... but the game/games would probably be better without it).

Not that I think tactical stuff or standard of play now is presently bad in RS nor that most players can afford to not being going all out. But even if you don't like my format side stuff I think fewer games could mean a better product.


On the specific names ... LeBron is (in NBA terms) old and has huge mileage. Durant and Curry are old-ish and have recent injury histories. Davis and Kawhi are ... is fragile the word? You want them at their best , put it that way.


Maybe the award games minimums will help - by appealing to individual stars egos - though apparently it would have overturned bunch of historical stuff and there's often unintended consequences (if a front-runner knows would-be rivals won't qualify and he's been healthy is he entitled to a break?). I don't love relying on individual ego either and in general don't love it at first glance.

The most important thing to combat load management is eliminating back to backs or at the very least keep them to a bare minimum to make the schedule fit. It just makes the regular season so wonky with teams rarely facing each other at full strength. How often nowadays do you check a season series between two teams and every single game has some guys missing? Even one such occurence would kind of suck but it's becoming the norm now.

Some oldheads will say that players used to play all games and much more minutes but does anyone here seriously think Wilt would be able to play 48 minutes per game for 82 games straight in the modern league? Basketball has become more dynamic, there's a lot more movement and the 82 games regular season is a relic of the past.

I wonder if they'd play more if per game stats were calculated by dividing totals by 82.

I mean some top guys did play 70+ games this year, Tatum, Sabonis, Trae, Draymond, CJ, Bam, so it's not unheard of. But to be fair none of these guys are truly tops of the top, other than maybe Tatum.

To me the biggest thing, more than stats or b2b, is just the fact that not every game matters towards the ultimate goal of winning a championship, until they do, guys will always chose or be convinced to sit out to prioritize being healthy for a later game.

Plus, well... there is just no logical incentive for guys to play all 82 or even 70+ consistently. Unfortunately for the NBA, you can't just made teams dumb again and try to get their guys to play all 82 through injuries and bad health. Clearly it's not enough of an issue for it to be fixed in the CBA so I don't think things will change anytime soon.

RCM88x wrote:I mean some top guys did play 70+ games this year, Tatum, Sabonis, Trae, Draymond, CJ, Bam, so it's not unheard of. But to be fair none of these guys are truly tops of the top, other than maybe Tatum.

To me the biggest thing, more than stats or b2b, is just the fact that not every game matters towards the ultimate goal of winning a championship, until they do, guys will always chose or be convinced to sit out to prioritize being healthy for a later game.

Plus, well... there is just no logical incentive for guys to play all 82 or even 70+ consistently. Unfortunately for the NBA, you can't just made teams dumb again and try to get their guys to play all 82 through injuries and bad health. Clearly it's not enough of an issue for it to be fixed in the CBA so I don't think things will change anytime soon.

They kind of indirectly fixed it in that To qualify for PS awards you must play 65 games. That is probably a test, and the league may go from there.

Unless

1)League pace goes down/less spacing/so there are not as many cuts that need to be made

2) Extend the season length by a month or so to allow for less back-to-backs

3) Have added incentives or nee CBA rule works


Then I have my doubts.

Is this purely a reflection of sitting games out or of actual injuries though? I think one of the main differences now is that guys just play through minor injuries far less than 10+ years ago. You had someone like Kobe who saw playing through injuries as a badge of honor(as did many others before him) compared to now where I think guys sit out almost as a precaution. The whole culture around playing 80+ games as normal has shifted.

LukaTheGOAT wrote:

RCM88x wrote:I mean some top guys did play 70+ games this year, Tatum, Sabonis, Trae, Draymond, CJ, Bam, so it's not unheard of. But to be fair none of these guys are truly tops of the top, other than maybe Tatum.

To me the biggest thing, more than stats or b2b, is just the fact that not every game matters towards the ultimate goal of winning a championship, until they do, guys will always chose or be convinced to sit out to prioritize being healthy for a later game.

Plus, well... there is just no logical incentive for guys to play all 82 or even 70+ consistently. Unfortunately for the NBA, you can't just made teams dumb again and try to get their guys to play all 82 through injuries and bad health. Clearly it's not enough of an issue for it to be fixed in the CBA so I don't think things will change anytime soon.

They kind of indirectly fixed it in that To qualify for PS awards you must play 65 games. That is probably a test, and the league may go from there.

Possibly, hard to know until we find out exactly what that means though. If it's a hard line, or if its just a guideline.

My fear it that it'll just further reduce the value of these awards and lead to an effort to diminish their impact on player salaries and such (which I think was stupid in the first place). If all the best players miss the teams and you get guys that some feel are undeserving making the teams, then people are just going to care even less about these awards. You think the league would be logical here, but what if a runaway MVP favorite only plays 64 games due to a legitimate injury, and it's given to a guy who only plays 66 games?
Immediately that award means less.

I think this is just a really poor band aid solution to the symptom and not the root problem. No one really was motivated to do much about it either because the league has record revenue and player salaries are only expected to continue to grow rapidly.

If the best players are in the play-in yes. If they are out of the play-in or a top seed than no

Cavsfansince84 wrote:Is this purely a reflection of sitting games out or of actual injuries though? I think one of the main differences now is that guys just play through minor injuries far less than 10+ years ago. You had someone like Kobe who saw playing through injuries as a badge of honor(as did many others before him) compared to now where I think guys sit out almost as a precaution. The whole culture around playing 80+ games as normal has shifted.

Could also simply be that teams are way more cautious now because of how much money they're paying these guys.

MartinToVaught wrote:

Cavsfansince84 wrote:Is this purely a reflection of sitting games out or of actual injuries though? I think one of the main differences now is that guys just play through minor injuries far less than 10+ years ago. You had someone like Kobe who saw playing through injuries as a badge of honor(as did many others before him) compared to now where I think guys sit out almost as a precaution. The whole culture around playing 80+ games as normal has shifted.

Could also simply be that teams are way more cautious now because of how much money they're paying these guys.

I'm not saying its completely on the players. Teams are less likely to try and get stars to play while they are still injured. Like I said, its the culture of the nba about playing 80 games. No one expects stars to play 80 games now. Maybe 75-77 games max.