Ridiculous the amount of games missed in recent years with advanced medical knowledge

[tsherkin]

The Play-In has been the best major change to the post-season since the NBA got rid of 5-game series.

Has it? I haven't even noticed that it exists, and it certainly has done nothing to curtail tanking.

The NBA is a business capitalizing on basketball and is a league owned by money hungry Billionaires who frankly shouldn't exist from a philosophical level in a society yet control the major aspect of the society in the USA.

That is an entirely separate discussion.

The idea that the NBA would sacrifice revenue for "the integrity of the game" is unfortunately unrealistic

That is 100% true, I agree. There is no reason they would do that if they are continuing to make money. This is basically what I said in my original post.

[Warspite]

Maybe take off the rose coloured glasses and compare the pace and intensity of games?

You think that because they play slower and more lackadaisically that they are more injury prone? Interesting take.

You can't possibly believe this. Players didn't even have to guard beyond the three point line in previous eras.

Playing zone defense and only playing between the 3pt lines on offense is very energy conserving. Go to any YMCA and you can watch 40 yr olds stand at the 3pt line and chuck and then play 3-2 zone on defense. We called todays NBA. "Old white man basketball" in the 90s.

[migya]

Seems like many players, particularly stars are missing lots of games again. With the increased medical knowledge and processes in recent years it makes no sense. It's likely alot of preserving players, can only think of for possible playoff good health and longer careers, but that doesn't lead to better results, better investment and better fan (the ones financing it) experience. Certainly does no good for comparison with players from other eras, regardless of how good the stats may look. A worker turning up 3 days in a 5 day working week is not the asset another that's there almost every day is. It looks very fake as well.

So, this isn't really how "advanced medical knowledge" works (referencing the thread title).

The physical stresses from the tempo and aggressive lateral movement of today's game are different than in ages past. That's not something that medicine can just magically go away. There's a reason we're seeing these Achilles injuries and so forth.

We have surgeries that work better, we have better training regimens and the like, but the joints these guy have are the same. And the taller guys who are stressing their joints are putting new stressors that guys in ages past didn't have. The game has a LOT more movement than it used to, beyond the baseline to baseline runs.

Guys missing games sucks, no doubt. But some guys are more or less durable than others, and the fundamental nature of the game has changed, too.

And then the idea that "older eras were much more intense and had more pace" is off. The pace was certainly higher, but they were doing less. There was a lot more running straight up and down for baseline jumpers, and considerably less action in the key. And then in the later 90s and early 2000s, you had a lot of set action where you were in the halfcourt waiting for basic things to happen. Less over impact on the players.

It's just not useful or contextually-valid to compare the earlier eras to know and complain that "advanced medical knowledge" should be solving this problem.

Just the much more physicality and contact makes the past eras, particularly 80s to 00s much more higher injury chances.

[Jaivl]

Seems like many players, particularly stars are missing lots of games again. With the increased medical knowledge and processes in recent years it makes no sense. It's likely alot of preserving players, can only think of for possible playoff good health and longer careers, but that doesn't lead to better results, better investment and better fan (the ones financing it) experience. Certainly does no good for comparison with players from other eras, regardless of how good the stats may look. A worker turning up 3 days in a 5 day working week is not the asset another that's there almost every day is. It looks very fake as well.

So, this isn't really how "advanced medical knowledge" works (referencing the thread title).

The physical stresses from the tempo and aggressive lateral movement of today's game are different than in ages past. That's not something that medicine can just magically go away. There's a reason we're seeing these Achilles injuries and so forth.

We have surgeries that work better, we have better training regimens and the like, but the joints these guy have are the same. And the taller guys who are stressing their joints are putting new stressors that guys in ages past didn't have. The game has a LOT more movement than it used to, beyond the baseline to baseline runs.

Guys missing games sucks, no doubt. But some guys are more or less durable than others, and the fundamental nature of the game has changed, too.

And then the idea that "older eras were much more intense and had more pace" is off. The pace was certainly higher, but they were doing less. There was a lot more running straight up and down for baseline jumpers, and considerably less action in the key. And then in the later 90s and early 2000s, you had a lot of set action where you were in the halfcourt waiting for basic things to happen. Less over impact on the players.

It's just not useful or contextually-valid to compare the earlier eras to know and complain that "advanced medical knowledge" should be solving this problem.

Just the much more physicality and contact makes the past eras, particularly 80s to 00s much more higher injury chances.

I mean, I'm not even sure why I'm engaging here, but there's a reason a competitive footballer is more injury-prone than a martial artist.

You don't usually get injured by a bump, a push or a smack in the face (unless it's to the point of a concussion, which doesn't usually happen on basketball). Most of the time, you get injured by the sudden, explosive changes of direction that characterize the current game.

[penbeast0]

I also think a part of it may be that players are coming into the league much younger and the stars are staying in the league to an older age (or maybe LeBron is just skewing the numbers for everyone). Both factor into injury frequency I would imagine.

[Ainosterhaspie]

Seems like many players, particularly stars are missing lots of games again. With the increased medical knowledge and processes in recent years it makes no sense.

Or increased medical knowledge has shown that more rest and better injury management improves performance and lengthens careers.

It's likely alot of preserving players, can only think of for possible playoff good health and longer careers, but that doesn't lead to better results, better investment and better fan (the ones financing it) experience.

Fans don't care about random Tuesday in November games. They sometimes pretend they do, but they really don't. They want the best players playing at the highest levels in June. If a player sitting out a game in November makes the player available and play8ng at peak in June, than makes for the best fan experience.

Certainly does no good for comparison with players from other eras, regardless of how good the stats may look.

If you're comparing games and minutes, sure, it reflects poorly on the current players. If you're comparing things that actually matter, its less of a problem. But that aside, the focus should be on maximizing team success today, not comparisons to yesterday, so this criticism misses the mark.

A worker turning up 3 days in a 5 day working week is not the asset another that's there almost every day is. It looks very fake as well.

Some workers are more productive in 3 days than others in 5 days. This can be particularly true in intense jobs where recovery, whether mental, physical or both, is needed for maximal production. Simply showing up and giving mediocre production relative to better rested production isn't optimal.

[DQuinn1575]

so players are playing less and what are we getting?
in 1998 41 guys age 34 and over played
so far in 2026 we have 29,
And that is with more roster spots available.

So less guys are playing to an older age.

Minutes played - last year Bridges easily led league and had over 3.000 minutes
1997 21 guys were over 3,000, and the 2nd place finisher in 2025 would have finished 41st in 1997.

If the game is giving us a situation where star players play less games in a season and then their careers arent even longer, you have an issue.
If it it due to the way the game is being played, then they need to look at this and figure out what tweaks will make it healthier for the players.

[Peregrine01]

Seems like many players, particularly stars are missing lots of games again. With the increased medical knowledge and processes in recent years it makes no sense. It's likely alot of preserving players, can only think of for possible playoff good health and longer careers, but that doesn't lead to better results, better investment and better fan (the ones financing it) experience. Certainly does no good for comparison with players from other eras, regardless of how good the stats may look. A worker turning up 3 days in a 5 day working week is not the asset another that's there almost every day is. It looks very fake as well.

Maybe take off the rose coloured glasses and compare the pace and intensity of games?

This is the common refrain and I think the overall hyper kinetic energy on the court is stretching the limits of the human body. At the same time, I also think load management is making players less conditioned to handling that stress. The only way to get conditioned for basketball is to play basketball.

[Mazter]

The problem is that people can't seem to distinguish the difference between load management and real injuries. And that advanced medical knowledge does not prevent injuries from happen...well, actually it does, by preventing players to overload. Therefore load management.

[jalengreen]

Read on Twitter

[penbeast0]

I would guess the steroids/PEDs and consistent daily hours of weight work also make one more prone to soft tissue injury (as opposed to broken bones or the like). I would guess the modern game is a bigger difference but another factor. Purely anecdotal but I've heard that a lot.

[trex_8063]

Eliminating back to backs is an easy first step

Or just reducing the number of B2B's??

I just noticed the schedule has been reduced to 80 games this season. Am I the only one that didn't know that was happening?
Out of 80 games, teams appear to have 13-14 B2B sets, fwiw.

[RCM88x]

Eliminating back to backs is an easy first step

Or just reducing the number of B2B's??

I just noticed the schedule has been reduced to 80 games this season. Am I the only one that didn't know that was happening?
Out of 80 games, teams appear to have 13-14 B2B sets, fwiw.

In season tournament, I think it's been the same as the last two years? Each team has flex spots incase they make it to the semifinal or final of the IST so each team still has the same number of games.

[ReggiesKnicks]

Eliminating back to backs is an easy first step

Or just reducing the number of B2B's??

I just noticed the schedule has been reduced to 80 games this season. Am I the only one that didn't know that was happening?
Out of 80 games, teams appear to have 13-14 B2B sets, fwiw.

In-Season Tournament.

The Quarter and Semi-Finals count as games. All teams have TBD games scheduled.

[Doctor MJ]

so players are playing less and what are we getting?
in 1998 41 guys age 34 and over played
so far in 2026 we have 29,
And that is with more roster spots available.

So less guys are playing to an older age.

Minutes played - last year Bridges easily led league and had over 3.000 minutes
1997 21 guys were over 3,000, and the 2nd place finisher in 2025 would have finished 41st in 1997.

If the game is giving us a situation where star players play less games in a season and then their careers arent even longer, you have an issue.
If it it due to the way the game is being played, then they need to look at this and figure out what tweaks will make it healthier for the players.

So let me say first that this topic is a challenging one and I don't think anyone has the entire picture - certainly myself included.

I do think that a major chunk of the problem regarding the missed games is simply that NBA teams and players know that regular season games don't really matter. You combine a) the existence of the playoffs as paramount and b) the fact that any contender knows they are guaranteed to make the playoffs even if they coast in the regular season, with c) the s**t the Warriors got as their reward for pushing hard to break the regular season W-L record and then losing the finals, and the BIG issue as I see it is that it's trivial to describe a solution that would fix the problem (play a lot less regular season games and allow less teams in the playoffs), it's unrealistic to see said solutions implemented.

But DQuinn your post struck me as something novel that I wanted to look into and possibly push back. Before I dig into data at all, I should say that my view point is colored here by diving into the WNBA analytically these past few years where I've seen a particular trope that I think was delusional:

In the WNBA, it hasn't been uncommon for 1st round draft picks (with 3-4 years of college experience) to get cut, with the apparent explanation being that the level of play in the WNBA is just so strong compared to college that players in their 30s are better than these 22 year olds.

But then last year, we saw an expansion team (Golden State Valkeries) come in with a bunch cast offs from other teams and be a better than average team in the league instantly, and meanwhile we see star veterans continued to not only get run, but retain primacy year after year even as the analytics tell me that this shouldn't at all be the case.

This then to say: I believe the WNBA is "artificially" old because the franchises have felt more comfortable sticking with established names even though the analytics could have told them they'd literally be better off starting over.

I wonder if the same might be said to be true about the NBA in the '90s relative to now. Aside from the analogy of the logic, there's the matter that the elites of the NBA are playing longer than ever. If only lesser veterans are getting the chop, then perhaps part of what's different here is that in the modern analytic NBA, your prior reputation counts for less than it did in the past.

[Ice Man]

I think we should take pace off the table as an explanatory factor, given that pace was faster in the Seventies and early Eighties. Now, it may be that the combination of 1) recently increased pace and 2) one or more things that have changed since the Seventies (such as the players being heavier, more lateral movement, etc.) explains the issue. But pace alone cannot be primary reason.

[Djoker]

According to official stats, most 3pt shots are open or wide open so it seems that teams don't close out the three aggressively, at least in the regular season.



I think there have always been injuries. Guys are load managing more because as a few posters have said, they want to have longer careers instead of running themselves into the ground after a few seasons and also be more fresh for the playoffs. And the teams are behind that as well. Also notable there are plenty of guys in the modern NBA that hardly load manage. Like Jokic and SGA who play practically every game...

[parapooper]

so players are playing less and what are we getting?
in 1998 41 guys age 34 and over played
so far in 2026 we have 29,
And that is with more roster spots available.

So less guys are playing to an older age.

Minutes played - last year Bridges easily led league and had over 3.000 minutes
1997 21 guys were over 3,000, and the 2nd place finisher in 2025 would have finished 41st in 1997.

If the game is giving us a situation where star players play less games in a season and then their careers arent even longer, you have an issue.
If it it due to the way the game is being played, then they need to look at this and figure out what tweaks will make it healthier for the players.

So let me say first that this topic is a challenging one and I don't think anyone has the entire picture - certainly myself included.

I do think that a major chunk of the problem regarding the missed games is simply that NBA teams and players know that regular season games don't really matter. You combine a) the existence of the playoffs as paramount and b) the fact that any contender knows they are guaranteed to make the playoffs even if they coast in the regular season, with c) the s**t the Warriors got as their reward for pushing hard to break the regular season W-L record and then losing the finals, and the BIG issue as I see it is that it's trivial to describe a solution that would fix the problem (play a lot less regular season games and allow less teams in the playoffs), it's unrealistic to see said solutions implemented.

But DQuinn your post struck me as something novel that I wanted to look into and possibly push back. Before I dig into data at all, I should say that my view point is colored here by diving into the WNBA analytically these past few years where I've seen a particular trope that I think was delusional:

In the WNBA, it hasn't been uncommon for 1st round draft picks (with 3-4 years of college experience) to get cut, with the apparent explanation being that the level of play in the WNBA is just so strong compared to college that players in their 30s are better than these 22 year olds.

But then last year, we saw an expansion team (Golden State Valkeries) come in with a bunch cast offs from other teams and be a better than average team in the league instantly, and meanwhile we see star veterans continued to not only get run, but retain primacy year after year even as the analytics tell me that this shouldn't at all be the case.

This then to say: I believe the WNBA is "artificially" old because the franchises have felt more comfortable sticking with established names even though the analytics could have told them they'd literally be better off starting over.

I wonder if the same might be said to be true about the NBA in the '90s relative to now. Aside from the analogy of the logic, there's the matter that the elites of the NBA are playing longer than ever. If only lesser veterans are getting the chop, then perhaps part of what's different here is that in the modern analytic NBA, your prior reputation counts for less than it did in the past.

Star players in the 90s stuck around the longest (someone here did an analysis where the best top10% minute player longevity from 1950s-2006 drafts was from the 1982-86 draft cohort). I would guess that was because the league was massively diluted right before that so teams would often rather keep an old known player than bet on some unknown guy from the G-league or the cleaning staff.

The dilution back then was the equivalent to adding 125 players to today's league - so if that happened now, would teams really add 125 players worse than the average 60th pick or would they do a mix of adding new guys and letting some old guys play more/longer?

Said another way, the expansions resulted in more roster spots and starter spots (undisputable) and lower average player quality (pretty logical if you add a ton of otherwise G-league guys) so old guys stayed above the lowered NBA-quality/starter quality for longer in the 90s before expanding player pool from growing population and internationals brought the average quality up again.
What everyone says about guys playing longer today is nonsense (at least until 2007 draft), probably to downplay Lebron's longevity. There are like 10 active guys who played 1/2 of Lebron's RS/PS minutes.

[Doctor MJ]

so players are playing less and what are we getting?
in 1998 41 guys age 34 and over played
so far in 2026 we have 29,
And that is with more roster spots available.

So less guys are playing to an older age.

Minutes played - last year Bridges easily led league and had over 3.000 minutes
1997 21 guys were over 3,000, and the 2nd place finisher in 2025 would have finished 41st in 1997.

If the game is giving us a situation where star players play less games in a season and then their careers arent even longer, you have an issue.
If it it due to the way the game is being played, then they need to look at this and figure out what tweaks will make it healthier for the players.

So let me say first that this topic is a challenging one and I don't think anyone has the entire picture - certainly myself included.

I do think that a major chunk of the problem regarding the missed games is simply that NBA teams and players know that regular season games don't really matter. You combine a) the existence of the playoffs as paramount and b) the fact that any contender knows they are guaranteed to make the playoffs even if they coast in the regular season, with c) the s**t the Warriors got as their reward for pushing hard to break the regular season W-L record and then losing the finals, and the BIG issue as I see it is that it's trivial to describe a solution that would fix the problem (play a lot less regular season games and allow less teams in the playoffs), it's unrealistic to see said solutions implemented.

But DQuinn your post struck me as something novel that I wanted to look into and possibly push back. Before I dig into data at all, I should say that my view point is colored here by diving into the WNBA analytically these past few years where I've seen a particular trope that I think was delusional:

In the WNBA, it hasn't been uncommon for 1st round draft picks (with 3-4 years of college experience) to get cut, with the apparent explanation being that the level of play in the WNBA is just so strong compared to college that players in their 30s are better than these 22 year olds.

But then last year, we saw an expansion team (Golden State Valkeries) come in with a bunch cast offs from other teams and be a better than average team in the league instantly, and meanwhile we see star veterans continued to not only get run, but retain primacy year after year even as the analytics tell me that this shouldn't at all be the case.

This then to say: I believe the WNBA is "artificially" old because the franchises have felt more comfortable sticking with established names even though the analytics could have told them they'd literally be better off starting over.

I wonder if the same might be said to be true about the NBA in the '90s relative to now. Aside from the analogy of the logic, there's the matter that the elites of the NBA are playing longer than ever. If only lesser veterans are getting the chop, then perhaps part of what's different here is that in the modern analytic NBA, your prior reputation counts for less than it did in the past.

Star players in the 90s stuck around the longest (someone here did an analysis where the best top10% minute player longevity from 1950s-2006 drafts was from the 1982-86 draft cohort). I would guess that was because the league was massively diluted right before that so teams would often rather keep an old known player than bet on some unknown guy from the G-league or the cleaning staff.

The dilution back then was the equivalent to adding 125 players to today's league - so if that happened now, would teams really add 125 players worse than the average 60th pick or would they do a mix of adding new guys and letting some old guys play more/longer?

Said another way, the expansions resulted in more roster spots and starter spots (undisputable) and lower average player quality (pretty logical if you add a ton of otherwise G-league guys) so old guys stayed above the lowered NBA-quality/starter quality for longer in the 90s before expanding player pool from growing population and internationals brought the average quality up again.
What everyone says about guys playing longer today is nonsense (at least until 2007 draft), probably to downplay Lebron's longevity. There are like 10 active guys who played 1/2 of Lebron's RS/PS minutes.

Great insight. Yes, I'd expect the expansion of the '90s played a role.

Another factor at least at the top of the league was the general busting of drafts in the last 80s and early 90s. Some of this is just about the roll of the dice of the right outlier talent being born, but as someone who came of age back then, I remember how much hype was put on David Robinson before Michael Jordan ever won a ring. The hype machine was essentially looking for the next generation to rise up and take control of the league, and it just kept not happening. The '90s were dominated by players from the 1984 & 1985 draft classes who had largely already emerged in the '80s. The extreme end to this was of course the 1998 Finals between two positively ancient teams (Bulls & Jazz) who were supposed to already be over.

[frica]

According to official stats, most 3pt shots are open or wide open so it seems that teams don't close out the three aggressively, at least in the regular season.

You can also turn it around and say players only shoot open shots (generally).