RealGM

With load management and injuries seemingly prevalent the last few years, the relatively low games played by many current top players will translate into their careers being diminished and their ratings being lower. Some top players of the last ten or so years have missed many games, many quite a number every season. This likely helps with longevity as far as number of years played in total, but as total games played will be considerably lower, the level of career has to be viewed as lesser than would have been.

It's like an employee turning up to work three days of a five day working week. They may perform well when there but produce less than an on average slightly less productive worker that's there almost every day.


Some notable mentions:

Kawhi Leonard - 32yrs old, 13 seasons, 696gms.

Joel Embiid - 29yrs old, 10 seasons, 433gms.

Anthony Davis - 30yrs old, 12 seasons, 736gms.

Paul George - 33yrs old, 14 seasons, 867gms.

Steph Curry - 35yrs old, 15 seasons, 956gms.

Kevin Durant - 35yrs old, 17 seasons, 1061gms.


Also missed games in his prime that diminishes him is Chris Paul who has played 38yrs old with 1272gms, last three odd seasons out of prime.



How much does this affect these players potential alltime ranking and how high could they possibly end up?

For Embiid and Leonard, at least, they SHOULD be rated significantly lower than if they were the type of players who would avoid or play through injuries.

penbeast0 wrote:For Embiid and Leonard, at least, they SHOULD be rated significantly lower than if they were the type of players who would avoid or play through injuries.

Pretty hard disagree here. Avoiding injuries mostly comes down to complete luck, just look at who was dealing with injuries this post-season. Should the majority of star players in the league now be valued lower than they were before? Playing through injuries seems like an especially bad idea for players with degenerative conditions.

Imo the only thing that matters is how much value players add throughout their career and not whether they've sat out a game with a sore ankle at some point in their career.

migya wrote:With load management and injuries seemingly prevalent the last few years, the relatively low games played by many current top players will translate into their careers being diminished and their ratings being lower. Some top players of the last ten or so years have missed many games, many quite a number every season. This likely helps with longevity as far as number of years played in total, but as total games played will be considerably lower, the level of career has to be viewed as lesser than would have been.

It's like an employee turning up to work three days of a five day working week. They may perform well when there but produce less than an on average slightly less productive worker that's there almost every day.


Some notable mentions:

Kawhi Leonard - 32yrs old, 13 seasons, 696gms.

Joel Embiid - 29yrs old, 10 seasons, 433gms.

Anthony Davis - 30yrs old, 12 seasons, 736gms.

Paul George - 33yrs old, 14 seasons, 867gms.

Steph Curry - 35yrs old, 15 seasons, 956gms.

Kevin Durant - 35yrs old, 17 seasons, 1061gms.


Also missed games in his prime that diminishes him is Chris Paul who has played 38yrs old with 1272gms, last three odd seasons out of prime.



How much does this affect these players potential alltime ranking and how high could they possibly end up?

For non-baseball fans, baseball pitchers used to pitch complete games. Gradually that was phased out. When cross-generation comparisons happen in baseball, very few people hold it against the modern pitchers that they pitch less innings.

For the NBA, I suspect the same thing will happen. But players will still be punished for having poor longevity in their era.

I'll use the guys on your list who are near the end of their career. Kawhi Leonard, Paul George, Steph Curry, Kevin Durant. Kawhi's rookie year was 2012. Since 2012,

Rank in Minutes Played
9. George, 27,917
13. Curry, 27,338
15. Durant, 27,042
41. Leonard, 22,103

The first 3 look durable but non-iron man for their era. And that is how I would treat them. By contrast Leonard looks markedly worse and I would downgrade him a notch for durability.

As an aside, top 3 since 2012
1. DeRozan, 33,945
2. Harden, 33,295
3. Lebron, 31,426

Lebron's a freak and I knew DeRozan was an iron man. I'm very surprised how much Harden has played.

penbeast0 wrote:For Embiid and Leonard, at least, they SHOULD be rated significantly lower than if they were the type of players who would avoid or play through injuries.

Agree they should be rated lower, but i’d point out PS embiid does play thru injuries. He’s just always injured at that point of the ssn (which is why he should be rated lower)

Dutchball97 wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:For Embiid and Leonard, at least, they SHOULD be rated significantly lower than if they were the type of players who would avoid or play through injuries.

Pretty hard disagree here. Avoiding injuries mostly comes down to complete luck, just look at who was dealing with injuries this post-season. Should the majority of star players in the league now be valued lower than they were before? Playing through injuries seems like an especially bad idea for players with degenerative conditions.

Imo the only thing that matters is how much value players add throughout their career and not whether they've sat out a game with a sore ankle at some point in their career.

Not sure how to read this.

Agree playing hurt is mostly a bad idea.

But "how much value players add throughout their career" will be impacted by how much they're out on the court.
A JE that can play 82 games and then a full healthy postseason would be more valuable (or "add more value") than a JE able to to do neither. This is more conceptual than saying "IRL JE is the second one".

Injuries are tricky to deal with in rankings and load management makes a great deal of sense. if it were "a game" sure that doesn't dent the career value. The issue is arguably some guys aren't playing that much RS (managed or not) and then still aren't healthy in the playoffs. You could perhaps argue they aren't managed enough.


More generally as some allude to you probably want to account for era norms in play style and typical load.

My post is more an answer to those who rate players like Bill Walton in their top 100 NBA players of all time for career. Being great matters, being on the court matters too. If you aren't playing, you aren't helping your team win (especially when you demand to be paid as a superstar despite the history of injuries).

There was a post in a recent thread that showed prime Manu(not full career mind you) played more minutes than prime Kawhi and it's mind boggling.

Like stuff like that makes you think about the guys who put all 82 but underperformed in the PO, as that can be attributed to luck(matchups in general) just as much as freak injuries.

migya wrote:With load management and injuries seemingly prevalent the last few years, the relatively low games played by many current top players will translate into their careers being diminished and their ratings being lower. Some top players of the last ten or so years have missed many games, many quite a number every season. This likely helps with longevity as far as number of years played in total, but as total games played will be considerably lower, the level of career has to be viewed as lesser than would have been.

It's like an employee turning up to work three days of a five day working week. They may perform well when there but produce less than an on average slightly less productive worker that's there almost every day.


Some notable mentions:

Kawhi Leonard - 32yrs old, 13 seasons, 696gms.

Joel Embiid - 29yrs old, 10 seasons, 433gms.

Anthony Davis - 30yrs old, 12 seasons, 736gms.

Paul George - 33yrs old, 14 seasons, 867gms.

Steph Curry - 35yrs old, 15 seasons, 956gms.

Kevin Durant - 35yrs old, 17 seasons, 1061gms.


Also missed games in his prime that diminishes him is Chris Paul who has played 38yrs old with 1272gms, last three odd seasons out of prime.



How much does this affect these players potential alltime ranking and how high could they possibly end up?

So I think for most this will be an indirect affect. To the extent missed games results in less season accolades, it's going to make them look less impressive to those who learn about them after the fact.

In terms of a related question: Will top players from today be seen as lesser than players from the past because they miss more games (and play less minutes per game)? Not generally. There will always be those impressed by extreme MPG and iron men, but this didn't stop Jordan from becoming the consensus GOAT over Wilt & Russ when he emerged. Whatever happens in the future, so long as the NBA isn't seen as actually getting worse athletic talent due to a drop off in the power of basketball marketing, it will likely set the foundation of those looking to learn about the past having first experienced their present.

I think it’ll mostly all be evaluated as an era-relative thing. Which is to say that someone like Kawhi will be downgraded, not because he’s from an era with load management, but because he played abnormally little compared to people in his own era.

Pretty wild that Joel Embiid has played 433 regular season games across his 10-year career. 43.3 games per year, basically a part-time player.

Yes, that will definitely affect how he’s perceived all-time.

Doctor MJ wrote:

migya wrote:With load management and injuries seemingly prevalent the last few years, the relatively low games played by many current top players will translate into their careers being diminished and their ratings being lower. Some top players of the last ten or so years have missed many games, many quite a number every season. This likely helps with longevity as far as number of years played in total, but as total games played will be considerably lower, the level of career has to be viewed as lesser than would have been.

It's like an employee turning up to work three days of a five day working week. They may perform well when there but produce less than an on average slightly less productive worker that's there almost every day.


Some notable mentions:

Kawhi Leonard - 32yrs old, 13 seasons, 696gms.

Joel Embiid - 29yrs old, 10 seasons, 433gms.

Anthony Davis - 30yrs old, 12 seasons, 736gms.

Paul George - 33yrs old, 14 seasons, 867gms.

Steph Curry - 35yrs old, 15 seasons, 956gms.

Kevin Durant - 35yrs old, 17 seasons, 1061gms.


Also missed games in his prime that diminishes him is Chris Paul who has played 38yrs old with 1272gms, last three odd seasons out of prime.



How much does this affect these players potential alltime ranking and how high could they possibly end up?

So I think for most this will be an indirect affect. To the extent missed games results in less season accolades, it's going to make them look less impressive to those who learn about them after the fact.

In terms of a related question: Will top players from today be seen as lesser than players from the past because they miss more games (and play less minutes per game)? Not generally. There will always be those impressed by extreme MPG and iron men, but this didn't stop Jordan from becoming the consensus GOAT over Wilt & Russ when he emerged. Whatever happens in the future, so long as the NBA isn't seen as actually getting worse athletic talent due to a drop off in the power of basketball marketing, it will likely set the foundation of those looking to learn about the past having first experienced their present.

To the bolded part; Jordan played about the same number of games as both Chamberlain and Russelll. The older two played a heap of minutes per game but Jordan played alot as well. The advantage nowadays is players are going to the nba alot younger, skipping college basically. That's three years extra they get and ofcourse modern medicine is much better so they get better treatment for injuries. All that makes the lesser games played inexcusable.