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.

[Moranis]

Obviously this is an extreme example, but what if a team is 60-2 with a player and 5-15 in the 20 games he missed.  Should that guy not be the MVP?

[Celtics2021]

Obviously this is an extreme example, but what if a team is 60-2 with a player and 5-15 in the 20 games he missed.  Should that guy not be the MVP?

No, he should not.  He is the best player, but his absence cost his team 15 games.

[aefgogreen]

Obviously this is an extreme example, but what if a team is 60-2 with a player and 5-15 in the 20 games he missed.  Should that guy not be the MVP?

Has this ever happened?  If he was that dominant, my guess is he'd have made the All Star game and be eligible for post season awards like Finals and Conference Finals MVP. If it is a season ending injury, I believe this is an exception that he would be eligible for awards. He'd also likely have a great resume either in front or behind him. Bill Walton had only 2 All Star games, All Defensive Teams, and All NBA teams each. This didn't stop him from being a first-ballot Hall-Of-Famer (I believe, someone please correct me if I'm wrong, All 50-year Team, and All  75-year team.

[Moranis]

Obviously this is an extreme example, but what if a team is 60-2 with a player and 5-15 in the 20 games he missed.  Should that guy not be the MVP?

Has this ever happened?  If he was that dominant, my guess is he'd have made the All Star game and be eligible for post season awards like Finals and Conference Finals MVP. If it is a season ending injury, I believe this is an exception that he would be eligible for awards. He'd also likely have a great resume either in front or behind him. Bill Walton had only 2 All Star games, All Defensive Teams, and All NBA teams each. This didn't stop him from being a first-ballot Hall-Of-Famer (I believe, someone please correct me if I'm wrong, All 50-year Team, and All  75-year team.

Walton won MVP playing in 58 games.  The Blazers were 48-10 in those games and 10-14 in the 24 games he missed.  Probably the closest example you will find.  The year before that the Blazers won the title. Walton played 65 games, the team was 44-21 with him and 5-12 without him.  He was healthy for the playoffs and they won the title.  So his 58 game season followed that one and sort of set a precedence. 

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Some say 65 is arbitrary, but what number wouldn't be arbitrary?

[Ilikesports17]

Obviously this is an extreme example, but what if a team is 60-2 with a player and 5-15 in the 20 games he missed.  Should that guy not be the MVP?

Yeah obviously that player should win the MVP. The question is really does the 65 game rule encourage enough players to take fewer rest days to compensate for the times when a deserving player is deemed ineligible.

For MVP, I dont think the rule is really necessary. But for All-NBA teams I think the tradeoff is probably worth it. 

[Moranis]

Obviously this is an extreme example, but what if a team is 60-2 with a player and 5-15 in the 20 games he missed.  Should that guy not be the MVP?

Yeah obviously that player should win the MVP. The question is really does the 65 game rule encourage enough players to take fewer rest days to compensate for the times when a deserving player is deemed ineligible.

For MVP, I dont think the rule is really necessary. But for All-NBA teams I think the tradeoff is probably worth it.

except they tie compensation to making All NBA teams. 

Jokic is 2nd in the league in total WinShares this year and leads the league in VORP.  He can only miss 1 more game and still be eligible for post season awards. If he misses 2, it seems very strange to me that the player responsible for the 2nd most wins in the entire sport, wouldn't be eligible for any awards, the all nba team, etc. 

[byennie]

Speculating that a player can play 64 games and be one of the best 15 players in the league (or even the MVP) isn't the point, though.

The rule is to protect the quality of the product, by heavily incentivizing players to want to play. Less "load management" and tanking, more star players on the court.

How it affects MVP award fairness may be an interesting debate, but it's not what the rule exists to do.

[Ilikesports17]

Obviously this is an extreme example, but what if a team is 60-2 with a player and 5-15 in the 20 games he missed.  Should that guy not be the MVP?

Yeah obviously that player should win the MVP. The question is really does the 65 game rule encourage enough players to take fewer rest days to compensate for the times when a deserving player is deemed ineligible.

For MVP, I dont think the rule is really necessary. But for All-NBA teams I think the tradeoff is probably worth it.

except they tie compensation to making All NBA teams. 

Jokic is 2nd in the league in total WinShares this year and leads the league in VORP.  He can only miss 1 more game and still be eligible for post season awards. If he misses 2, it seems very strange to me that the player responsible for the 2nd most wins in the entire sport, wouldn't be eligible for any awards, the all nba team, etc.

What would be a reasonable balance to you?

1 player snubbed from an all-nba team = how many extra star player games in the regular season?

Thats the whole point of this. Obviously rule was not put in place to protect the awards. It would be nonsensical from that perspective, no different from putting a points per game floor on MVP eligibility. But the NBA had to do SOMETHING about load management and rest days. Its too hard to police individual occurrences, so instead you just create an incentive for star players to never want to miss a game if they arent actually hurt.

[Kernewek]

Some say 65 is arbitrary, but what number wouldn't be arbitrary?

Probably 42, (i.e. more than 50%), but that wouldn't solve the problem.

But the NBA had to do SOMETHING about load management and rest days. Its too hard to police individual occurrences, so instead you just create an incentive for star players to never want to miss a game if they arent actually hurt.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many star players in the NBA who want to miss a game if they aren't actually hurt (and, as discussed, they're incentivised to play via contractual bonuses). Load management is typically an organisational prerogative.

[CFAN38]

I have no issue with the 65 game rule, the league needs its stars on the court I'm not sure how else they can deter load management/star based tanking.


One wrinkle that is loosely connected that I think they should change is the increased salary attached to post season awards. More specifically how they effect the cap. If a play hits all of the requirements to get a super max great give the player his $$$ but the cap hit should be the same as a normal max. Teams should not be disappointed their players are thriving because it will hurt their cap/tax numbers.