What do you think of 65 games rule?

[celticsclay]

It has been in the news a bit this week. Halliburton complained about it and said other players feel the same. He is one of the players that has a big financial stake in making all-nba. Although I haven’t seen anything said by Embid, many have speculated he was motivated to play last night to remain eligible for mvp. It seemed pretty clear he was still banged up and reinjured himself. He now seems very likely to miss a few more games and be unable to be eligible for awards. Is this new rule good or bad?

My thoughts, I don’t like that this stuff is tied to financial incentives for players, but I do think it is a good policy. 65 games is playing basically 4 out of every 5 games which seems to build in some gaps for non serious injuries. Maybe they could lower it to 60? I do think they should keep something like this. Thoughts?

[Kernewek]

It has been in the news a bit this week. Halliburton complained about it and said other players feel the same. He is one of the players that has a big financial stake in making all-nba. Although I haven’t seen anything said by Embid, many have speculated he was motivated to play last night to remain eligible for mvp. It seemed pretty clear he was still banged up and reinjured himself. He now seems very likely to miss a few more games and be unable to be eligible for awards. Is this new rule good or bad?

My thoughts, I don’t like that this stuff is tied to financial incentives for players, but I do think it is a good policy. 65 games is playing basically 4 out of every 5 games which seems to build in some gaps for non serious injuries. Maybe they could lower it to 60? I do think they should keep something like this. Thoughts?

This is the crux of the matter, I agree. Having eligibility criteria for awards and accolades is fine, tying contract incentives to those awards is where it gets murky, because it's not always in your best interest (or your control) as a player to be on the court for that 65th game (or 60th, or 82nd, or whatever).

[Who]

I would have set it at 60.

[hpantazo]

I would have set it at 60.

I agree. It's a good rule overall, but the number is a bit too high. How many players actually play 80% of the regular season games each year? 60 is a lot more reasonable.

[RJ87]

I like the policy. Part of ability is availability, and I think that gets lost in the game with all of the load management stuff. Guys like Durant and Lebron could miss chunks of seasons, but still get an all-NBA selection based on their name. I don't see that as being fair to guys who play a majority of the season and are deserving of those spots.

[Moranis]

65 games is fine.

Tying contract values to post season awards is the stupid part.

[Phantom255x]

I would have set it at 60.

Same. Or mathematically, maybe allow for 20 missed games and have the limit at 62 total instead of 65

[Roy H.]

I mean, it's basically set at 80% of the games.  I think that's reasonable.

[ChillyWilly]

if I'm up for $40 mil I dont care whats wrong with me I'm letting coach and training staff I'm available and if you dont want to play me thats on you ill be in uniform and ready to check in when called.

[jpotter33]

Yeah, it feels like the consensus is that the rule itself is fine for the awards component, but it's how it affects actual contracts that is the questionable part. But honestly, that was already a questionable practice given how these things are voted on where local biases clearly come into play, particularly for All-NBA.

Overall, I'm all for it, and I think you've already seen a tangible impact with star players playing more games than the last few years, though some of that is also the new resting rules, I believe.

[Moranis]

My biggest problem with the contracts being tied to awards is the ridiculous way they do it. So because Brown's 1 season of making an All NBA coincided with the year he was eligible to sign a supermax (and had a bunch of people get injured and miss a bunch of games), he was able to sign it, but someone like Siakam who made the 3rd Team in 21-22 and the 2nd Team in 19-20, wasn't able to sign the supermax last summer (and now with his trade can't at all). That is just dumb.  It makes no sense.  That needs to be changed.  I think you should have at least 2 seasons of any All NBA or 1 season of 1st Team (since you can't fluke your way into that) and those seasons need to be on your current contract or must be active and consecutive (so if someone signs a 1 year contract they could still get there if the other salary rules apply).  Using that scenario neither Siakam or Brown would have been eligible last summer (Siakam's 2nd team was not on his current contract), but both could have been had they made any of the teams this year.  Doing it that way takes the luck and flukiness out of it because if you make it twice, you have shown yourself to be a premier player (or if you make the 1st team in any year, you are a premier player).  The boosted salary should be for the premier players, not just a guy that made 1 team once and got lucky that the year he made it he was eligible to sign the supermax.

[hpantazo]

Just saw a stat about how Michael Jordan had 11 seasons of over 80 games played.

[LilRip]

I think it’s a welcome change. 80% sounds like a reasonable number for regular season awards (and the financial benefits that come with it). It’s not like contracts are being voided. It’s not like it eliminates them from the playoffs (assuming their teams can keep in contention without them).

Players who deserve to win regular season awards are players who play in the regular season.

Another hot take: the “scoring title” should go to the player who scored the most points in the season, not the player who had the highest PPG

[jambr380]

I think it'll end up with more players like Brown who will be eligible for the supermax. Whether that's a good thing or bad thing remains to be seen, but more younger 2nd tier stars will make All-NBA because older players who are already at the 10+ year mark aren't going to bother trying to reach that 65 game threshold if they have any kind-of small injuries. It'll bother them a little to lose out on the accolades, but they don't have the financial incentive to push for it like younger players do.

[PAOBoston]

Availability is sort of the game. Can’t win season long awards if you play less than 20% of your games when others play more than you.