Very much in favor of the 65 game rule

[aefgogreen]

Let me start by saying it stinks what happened to Cade and that he might not make the All NBA Team.  He's had a great season, he's team has been fantastic and the injury was really out of his control. I would also be OK with the league lowering the threshold to 62 games (even doing it this season) as that still represents over 75% of the games played.

But if he doesn't make it this year, it is not the end of his legacy.  He will no doubt make it in the future, and if he and his team have a great playoffs, he has the chance to pick up some post season awards (I'd even be open to a Playoffs All NBA team).

My reason for liking the rule is two-fold.  First off, in order to have a significant impact on the season, you have to play in enough games. I get the rule was created to reduce load management. But even if the player is sitting involuntarily, he still isn't playing. I do think that when determining if a player qualifies for honors, the threshold should be binary. For example, once a player meets the minimum, the number of games should no longer be a factor. E.g., a player that plays 65 games should get equal consideration to one that plays 80.  At that point, it should come down to other factors.

Secondly, I've heard many pundits complain about the rule. Generally, these individuals get to attend a lot of games for free with fairly good seats. Respectfully, this is not who the game is for.  I think more about the parent that has time and resources for maybe a few games, getting the best seats they can.  I live in DC, and wins for the home team are few and far between.  When someone buys tickets for the Spurs or Nuggets, they keep their fingers crossed that Wemby or Jokic will play.

The rule is working. Both of these guys missed games early (to injury) and have been playing consistently for quite some time. This means that parent and their kids get to see a star in person.  The teams (and players) have a decision to make. They can decide that keeping these guys rested and healthy is more important than fans seeing their stars play.  And I respect that decision.  But if they do it too much, they sacrifice the opportunity for honors.  They have to choose what they think is best.  At the end of the day, players get paid a lot of money so people get the chance to see them at their best. The ultimate goal should not be for them to stay rested until the playoffs arrive. 

[Csfan1984]

Playing the 65 is as important as putting up a great average. You have to be there for your team to be impactful.

[Kernewek]

Let me start by saying it stinks what happened to Cade and that he might not make the All NBA Team.  He's had a great season, he's team has been fantastic and the injury was really out of his control. I would also be OK with the league lowering the threshold to 62 games (even doing it this season) as that still represents over 75% of the games played.

But if he doesn't make it this year, it is not the end of his legacy.  He will no doubt make it in the future, and if he and his team have a great playoffs, he has the chance to pick up some post season awards (I'd even be open to a Playoffs All NBA team).

My reason for liking the rule is two-fold.  First off, in order to have a significant impact on the season, you have to play in enough games. I get the rule was created to reduce load management. But even if the player is sitting involuntarily, he still isn't playing. I do think that when determining if a player qualifies for honors, the threshold should be binary. For example, once a player meets the minimum, the number of games should no longer be a factor. E.g., a player that plays 65 games should get equal consideration to one that plays 80.  At that point, it should come down to other factors.

Secondly, I've heard many pundits complain about the rule. Generally, these individuals get to attend a lot of games for free with fairly good seats. Respectfully, this is not who the game is for.  I think more about the parent that has time and resources for maybe a few games, getting the best seats they can.  I live in DC, and wins for the home team are few and far between.  When someone buys tickets for the Spurs or Nuggets, they keep their fingers crossed that Wemby or Jokic will play.

The rule is working. Both of these guys missed games early (to injury) and have been playing consistently for quite some time. This means that parent and their kids get to see a star in person.  The teams (and players) have a decision to make. They can decide that keeping these guys rested and healthy is more important than fans seeing their stars play.  And I respect that decision.  But if they do it too much, they sacrifice the opportunity for honors.  They have to choose what they think is best.  At the end of the day, players get paid a lot of money so people get the chance to see them at their best. The ultimate goal should not be for them to stay rested until the playoffs arrive.

One additional wrinkle many of these athletes have incentives tied to accolades like this - let's say Cunningham missed the All-NBA team because of the 65-game rule, but he would have made it if it were 60 games. At that point the team has a fiscal incentive to keep him benched and 'rested & healthy until the playoffs arrive'.

[aefgogreen]

Let me start by saying it stinks what happened to Cade and that he might not make the All NBA Team.  He's had a great season, he's team has been fantastic and the injury was really out of his control. I would also be OK with the league lowering the threshold to 62 games (even doing it this season) as that still represents over 75% of the games played.

But if he doesn't make it this year, it is not the end of his legacy.  He will no doubt make it in the future, and if he and his team have a great playoffs, he has the chance to pick up some post season awards (I'd even be open to a Playoffs All NBA team).



My reason for liking the rule is two-fold.  First off, in order to have a significant impact on the season, you have to play in enough games. I get the rule was created to reduce load management. But even if the player is sitting involuntarily, he still isn't playing. I do think that when determining if a player qualifies for honors, the threshold should be binary. For example, once a player meets the minimum, the number of games should no longer be a factor. E.g., a player that plays 65 games should get equal consideration to one that plays 80.  At that point, it should come down to other factors.

Secondly, I've heard many pundits complain about the rule. Generally, these individuals get to attend a lot of games for free with fairly good seats. Respectfully, this is not who the game is for.  I think more about the parent that has time and resources for maybe a few games, getting the best seats they can.  I live in DC, and wins for the home team are few and far between.  When someone buys tickets for the Spurs or Nuggets, they keep their fingers crossed that Wemby or Jokic will play.

The rule is working. Both of these guys missed games early (to injury) and have been playing consistently for quite some time. This means that parent and their kids get to see a star in person.  The teams (and players) have a decision to make. They can decide that keeping these guys rested and healthy is more important than fans seeing their stars play.  And I respect that decision.  But if they do it too much, they sacrifice the opportunity for honors.  They have to choose what they think is best.  At the end of the day, players get paid a lot of money so people get the chance to see them at their best. The ultimate goal should not be for them to stay rested until the playoffs arrive.

One additional wrinkle many of these athletes have incentives tied to accolades like this - let's say Cunningham missed the All-NBA team because of the 65-game rule, but he would have made it if it were 60 games. At that point the team has a fiscal incentive to keep him benched and 'rested & healthy until the playoffs arrive'.

Very good point - I've never liked players' salaries being tied to honors that the press gives.  And I've never seen one pundit that said they should have this responsibility.