RealGM

Looking at some current players and the relative low amount of games they play per season, usually because of the load management disgrace, how does it diminish their career value and rankings alltime?

egs.

Durant - age 34, 16 seasons (08-23) - 986gms

Kawhi - age 31, 12 seasons (12-23) - 628gms

Embidd - age 28, 9 seasons (15-23) 394gms

Curry - age 34, 14 seasons (10-23) - 882 gms



I find it hard to see how any of these players can be considered top 20 because of the low number of games they've played and not all their seasons were prime. Embidd looks like he won't play more than 900 games they he's going.

I consider the current NBA far more taxing than previous eras.

That said, playing more [relative to peers, I'm looking at you ANT and Mikal] gives them an in-era bonus.

Colbinii wrote:I consider the current NBA far more taxing than previous eras.

That said, playing more [relative to peers, I'm looking at you ANT and Mikal] gives them an in-era bonus.

Much less physical as this era is makes it less taxing, are you kidding. That's why guys in older eras didn't last much past 33 years of age.

KD/Curry seem to be on a fine enough pace imo (not that they'll be longevity monsters). Plenty of guys in most top 20s not so far past them:

MJ 1072
Wilt 1045
Oscar 1040
Robinson 987
Russell 963
West 932
Magic 906
Bird 897

Even Kawhi could catch the bottom of that list.

Its not that dissimilar to mpg for me. I mean it comes down to what can constitute a high level season I think if we are comparing top 25 players of all time. I generally draw the line at about 65-70 games(adjusted for shorter seasons) and a playoff run. Below that and I'm going to downgrade the season as a whole. So what could have been a strong mvp season becomes more like a weak mvp level season. If a guy is below about 32mpg again I generally downgrade a bit as well(with some bonus points for guys who have those 40+mpg seasons). The harder part I think is when guys get injured just before or during the playoffs. Because theoretically no matter how good a guy was that year if his team doesn't have him for the conf finals and finals they aren't going to win it.

eminence wrote:KD/Curry seem to be on a fine enough pace imo (not that they'll be longevity monsters). Plenty of guys in most top 20s not so far past them:

MJ 1072
Wilt 1045
Oscar 1040
Robinson 987
Russell 963
West 932
Magic 906
Bird 897

Even Kawhi could catch the bottom of that list.

In those cases those players were at their prime and high level from their first season. Kawhi is one that certainly wasn't and that diminishes his career alot.

migya wrote:

Colbinii wrote:I consider the current NBA far more taxing than previous eras.

That said, playing more [relative to peers, I'm looking at you ANT and Mikal] gives them an in-era bonus.

Much less physical as this era is makes it less taxing, are you kidding. That's why guys in older eras didn't last much past 33 years of age.

There are 3 currently active players in the top 80 of games played.

parapooper wrote:

migya wrote:

Colbinii wrote:I consider the current NBA far more taxing than previous eras.

That said, playing more [relative to peers, I'm looking at you ANT and Mikal] gives them an in-era bonus.

Much less physical as this era is makes it less taxing, are you kidding. That's why guys in older eras didn't last much past 33 years of age.

There are 3 currently active players in the top 80 of games played.

And off the top of my head one of them, the very famous one, has played less and less the last few seasons.

migya wrote:

Colbinii wrote:I consider the current NBA far more taxing than previous eras.

That said, playing more [relative to peers, I'm looking at you ANT and Mikal] gives them an in-era bonus.

Much less physical as this era is makes it less taxing, are you kidding. That's why guys in older eras didn't last much past 33 years of age.

Not true.

homecourtloss wrote:

migya wrote:

Colbinii wrote:I consider the current NBA far more taxing than previous eras.

That said, playing more [relative to peers, I'm looking at you ANT and Mikal] gives them an in-era bonus.

Much less physical as this era is makes it less taxing, are you kidding. That's why guys in older eras didn't last much past 33 years of age.

Not true.

That would be true for the 1950s and 1960s, but we know that migya says about the 1990s, where there percentage of the "old" players was the highest ever.

"Load management disgrace"

And yet these players are battling constant injuries...

migya wrote:

eminence wrote:KD/Curry seem to be on a fine enough pace imo (not that they'll be longevity monsters). Plenty of guys in most top 20s not so far past them:

MJ 1072
Wilt 1045
Oscar 1040
Robinson 987
Russell 963
West 932
Magic 906
Bird 897

Even Kawhi could catch the bottom of that list.

In those cases those players were at their prime and high level from their first season. Kawhi is one that certainly wasn't and that diminishes his career alot.

I don't really see that big of a difference between Kawhi's improvement from his rookie season to his prime a few years later compared to Bird, West and Magic. Just looking at All-Star and All-NBA selections/votes paints a skewed picture when comparing players from a time when making those teams was far easier to active players. Especially if you take into account Kawhi not immediately getting the chance to lead his team like those other guys did.

If Kawhi can continue playing 50-60 games a year for another 3-4 years I don't see his lack of longevity being enough to keep him out of the top 20 conversation entirely when Magic is pretty universally top 10, while Bird and West are rarely found outside the top 15.

Dutchball97 wrote:

migya wrote:

eminence wrote:KD/Curry seem to be on a fine enough pace imo (not that they'll be longevity monsters). Plenty of guys in most top 20s not so far past them:

MJ 1072
Wilt 1045
Oscar 1040
Robinson 987
Russell 963
West 932
Magic 906
Bird 897

Even Kawhi could catch the bottom of that list.

In those cases those players were at their prime and high level from their first season. Kawhi is one that certainly wasn't and that diminishes his career alot.

I don't really see that big of a difference between Kawhi's improvement from his rookie season to his prime a few years later compared to Bird, West and Magic. Just looking at All-Star and All-NBA selections/votes paints a skewed picture when comparing players from a time when making those teams was far easier to active players. Especially if you take into account Kawhi not immediately getting the chance to lead his team like those other guys did.

If Kawhi can continue playing 50-60 games a year for another 3-4 years I don't see his lack of longevity being enough to keep him out of the top 20 conversation entirely when Magic is pretty universally top 10, while Bird and West are rarely found outside the top 15.

There is no comparison. Those three were hits from the start, Kawhi certainly wasn't and took years to be among the best.