Very much in favor of the 65 game rule

[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?

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.

I would keep the rule for MVP as well.  I think it's a big part of the reason that Wemby and Jokic have been playing every game.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

This rule wouldn't be an issue if players and teams hadn't decided to throw away the regular season. The intent of the rule is not to penalize players that got injured for more than 79% of the season. It was to penalize players that intentionally rested, took games off, and disappointed fans for more than 20% of the season.

The NBPA agreed to the terms of this in the collective bargaining agreement. They made their bed. Now they need to lay in it.

I'd probably be all for a shorter season if that's what the players want, but players need to stop acting like victims of a greedy and unfair league all the time.

[aefgogreen]

This rule wouldn't be an issue if players and teams hadn't decided to throw away the regular season. The intent of the rule is not to penalize players that got injured for more than 79% of the season. It was to penalize players that intentionally rested, took games off, and disappointed fans for more than 20% of the season.

The NBPA agreed to the terms of this in the collective bargaining agreement. They made their bed. Now they need to lay in it.

I'd probably be all for a shorter season if that's what the players want, but players need to stop acting like victims of a greedy and unfair league all the time.

I'd definitely be in favor of a shorter regular season.  I think it would eliminate load management as the regular season is less grueling and every game would carry more importance.  Obviously, in person revenues would suffer, but I think ratings may increase as the games matter more.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

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.

[johnnygreen]

Load management would still be an issue if the regular season was shortened.

[No Nickname]

I wonder if they compromise and land at 72. 

[Donoghus]

I wonder if they compromise and land at 72.

The problem, among several problem, is the TV contract they're locked into.  That's 11 year deal. 

[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.

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.

it is more than 1 player though. I used Jokic as an example because he is the best player that could miss out.  Cade Cunningham is probably going to miss out because of his collapsed lung. Wemby and Kawhi are close.  Other players like Edwards and Booker aren't far off of missing it either


Picture this scenario. It is the last game of the year and the Nuggets and Spurs are locked into their seeding.  Jokic and Wemby have played in 64 games.   They both play in the meaningless game to get to 65 and one or both gets hurt and misses the playoffs.  Is that really what the league wants?  This is just another "fix" that doesnt actually address the problem.  If you want teams to stop resting healthy players the only way to do it is to fine them and fine them heavily.  The pocket book is all teams care about. 

[Moranis]

SGA will probably win the MVP again this year.  He has missed 12 games so far, so the max he can play is 70.  If Jokic ends up at 64, I'd rather just let the voters decide how important those 6 extra games are that SGA played.  Same thing for All NBA, if Jaylen ends up with 74 games and Luka ends up at 64, let the voters decide who should be 1st Team. The voters should be more than capable of placing a value on those 10 extra games played.

[aefgogreen]

Load management would still be an issue if the regular season was shortened.

I don't think would be. The reason teams load manage players is because they feel there are simply too many games.  If there are fewer games (and the games would most likely be more spread out) there is less strain on the players.  And there wouldn't be an advantage to sitting them.  In short, playing 60 out of 82 keeps a player better rested than if he played all (or 90-something per cent of) the 82. Playing 40 out of 62 (or again 90-something percent of the 62) wouldn't necessarily have the same affect.  The law of diminishing returns would kick in.

[Phantom255x]

Load management would still be an issue if the regular season was shortened.

I don't think would be. The reason teams load manage players is because they feel there are simply too many games.  If there are fewer games (and the games would most likely be more spread out) there is less strain on the players.  And there wouldn't be an advantage to sitting them.  In short, playing 60 out of 82 keeps a player better rested than if he played all (or 90-something per cent of) the 82. Playing 40 out of 62 (or again 90-something percent of the 62) wouldn't necessarily have the same affect.  The law of diminishing returns would kick in.

I also think having 10 fewer games probably mitigates the idea of back-to-backs, or those stretches of 5 games in 7 days where by the end of it teams are just resting their whole team or forfeiting basically.

That said, idk if it's really realistic considering the players would probably also have to have their salaries cut a little (in proportion to the fewer games) and idk if they'd even want that. Same with the owners who might want to have those extra games at the arena.

I don't think anything will be done with the number of games in a season (82), but I've always felt they should have the limit at 58-62 games, not 65.

[slamtheking]

Load management would still be an issue if the regular season was shortened.

I don't think would be. The reason teams load manage players is because they feel there are simply too many games.  If there are fewer games (and the games would most likely be more spread out) there is less strain on the players.  And there wouldn't be an advantage to sitting them.  In short, playing 60 out of 82 keeps a player better rested than if he played all (or 90-something per cent of) the 82. Playing 40 out of 62 (or again 90-something percent of the 62) wouldn't necessarily have the same affect.  The law of diminishing returns would kick in.

I also think having 10 fewer games probably mitigates the idea of back-to-backs, or those stretches of 5 games in 7 days where by the end of it teams are just resting their whole team or forfeiting basically.

That said, idk if it's really realistic considering the players would probably also have to have their salaries cut a little (in proportion to the fewer games) and idk if they'd even want that. Same with the owners who might want to have those extra games at the arena.

I don't think anything will be done with the number of games, but I've always felt they should have the limit at 58-62 games, not 65.

and there's the rub - it's all about the $ for players and teams.

the 65-game limit implies that players have the final say in playing/sitting when healthy.  I don't know that it actually changes players minds to get them to play more rather than sitting out when healthy but I do think if you hit the teams and players with financial penalties for sitting when healthy, that'd be more effective.

Players get no pay for those games (or no pay after the first 2 sit-outs or some other low number) and teams have to provide reimbursement to fans who paid to see that game live as well as give the TV networks at least a partial rebate on the broadcast fee.  I do think that would open up the hornet's nest regarding which players would be subject to that rule since it shouldn't be all of them.  Would also need to account for players that do dress for the game but the coach "wink wink" DNPs them for the game to get that rest.  There's a big difference between JB sitting out a game for rest vs PP sitting out a game for rest vs Sam Hauser sitting out a game for rest. 

At what point would the cutoff be in terms of player level for financial penalties to be applied to the player/team?

[aefgogreen]

[/quote]
  Would also need to account for players that do dress for the game but the coach "wink wink" DNPs them for the game to get that rest.  There's a big difference between JB sitting out a game for rest vs PP sitting out a game for rest vs Sam Hauser sitting out a game for rest. 
[/quote]

The solution to this is that the player has to play at least 20 (or another number) minutes. You can determine which players this counts for by putting the rule in place that it goes for anyone that's made an All Star or All NBA team in the past 2 (or another number) seasons.   The tricky part is all the tickets sold on the secondary market.

[slamtheking]

  Would also need to account for players that do dress for the game but the coach "wink wink" DNPs them for the game to get that rest.  There's a big difference between JB sitting out a game for rest vs PP sitting out a game for rest vs Sam Hauser sitting out a game for rest. 

The solution to this is that the player has to play at least 20 (or another number) minutes. You can determine which players this counts for by putting the rule in place that it goes for anyone that's made an All Star or All NBA team in the past 2 (or another number) seasons.  The tricky part is all the tickets sold on the secondary market.

you address that by paying every fan in the arena that shows their tickets at a ticket window.  have the teams develop a method for tracking which tickets have been reimbursed that night and they'd be required to have those ticket windows open for reimbursements at least 30 minutes after a game ends (and stay open longer if there's lines of people waiting to be refunded.)

as for which players it applies to, I think the all-star or all-nba criteria are a starting point.  should also include anyone who's won any award in the past X seasons as well as a team's top 2 or 3 players.  The last one is for people that buy tickets for Utah for example since their top players aren't winning those awards.  Kessler, Markkanen or Bailey (Jackson would also be an example now that he's been traded to them) would be the primary reasons for buying a ticket to see the Jazz and if any of them are sitting when healthy (and they've done that this year without dispute for Markkanen) then the Jazz should be ponying up the cash to reimburse whoever bought a ticket to see them play -- whether home or away.

Obviously not a perfect system to address it but no system will be. 

[Vermont Green]

Wow, lots of complicated suggestions.  I don't know the answer.  The base question here seems to be whether there should be a 65 game rule for season awards.  Then it got conflated into a question about load management in general (or so it seems).

There are not that many players in the league that are legitimately contenders for MVP.  I don't really like the rule as it applies to MVP (or other awards).  If a player gets injured and misses 20 games, that should be a factor but I don't like the hard cut off.  Play 66 games and you are OK but only 64 and you don't qualify?

I believe that a first place vote is 10 points, second is 7 and so on.  Maybe make it that if you play less than 65 games, then your first place vote is only worth 9 points, second only 6 points or something.  That way it is still a factor but not all in or all out.

As far as load management, so long as there are back to back games, all teams are going to rest some players.  Eliminate back to back games and there would be less of this.  Some players need rest along the way or they won't get through the season.  I don't see this as a major problem and also no realistic way to change it.