Very much in favor of the 65 game rule

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

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.

A lot of things in life are like this, though, whether for good or bad. Hit 500 homers and you're a lock for the Hall of Fame, hit 499 and you're not. Make X dollars and you qualify for welfare, make $100 more and you don't. It's the nature of cutoffs.

Perhaps the best approach in the NBA is to have a cutoff, but one that's a lot easier to surpass, such as ">50% of games." There are a lot of opinions about how many games a player should have to play to "deserve" awards consideration, but I'd hope that most people could agree that a player who misses half (or more) of his team's games doesn't deserve to win any awards.

[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.

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.

Yes. Thats what I want.

And my question wasnt about Jokic. It was about what balance you think would make the rule good. In a hypothetical world where 1 player gets snubbed every 10 years and each season we get an extra 25 star player games the rule becomes obviously good.

In a world where 5 players get snubbed every year and we only get 1 extra star player game per year the rule is obviously bad.

My question is 1) what do you think the current balance is and 2) what would be the proper ratio to make the rule good.

The idea of fining teams for sitting healthy players is too hard to implement.

[Ilikesports17]

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.

But load management is literally the only reason the rule exists.

Otherwise it makes no more sense than adding minimum criteria for points, assists, or rebounds.

[Ilikesports17]

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.

A lot of things in life are like this, though, whether for good or bad. Hit 500 homers and you're a lock for the Hall of Fame, hit 499 and you're not. Make X dollars and you qualify for welfare, make $100 more and you don't. It's the nature of cutoffs.

Perhaps the best approach in the NBA is to have a cutoff, but one that's a lot easier to surpass, such as ">50% of games." There are a lot of opinions about how many games a player should have to play to "deserve" awards consideration, but I'd hope that most people could agree that a player who misses half (or more) of his team's games doesn't deserve to win any awards.

Greater than 50% of the games would achieve absolutely nothing. There would be genuinely no point to have that rule.

[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.

Yes. Thats what I want.

And my question wasnt about Jokic. It was about what balance you think would make the rule good. In a hypothetical world where 1 player gets snubbed every 10 years and each season we get an extra 25 star player games the rule becomes obviously good.

In a world where 5 players get snubbed every year and we only get 1 extra star player game per year the rule is obviously bad.

My question is 1) what do you think the current balance is and 2) what would be the proper ratio to make the rule good.

The idea of fining teams for sitting healthy players is too hard to implement.

The only real answer is fines.  And the league did that this year. They just didn't do it enough.  Fines are the only thing that would work.

Also, there are some obvious examples of teams resting healthy players, but it happens far less frequently than is presented.  The vast majority of the time, the player is actually banged up.  Maybe they'd play in the playoffs some of the time, but a player shouldn't be forced to play when they are hurt especially when the stakes aren't high. 

As I've said elsewhere, I'd prefer a rule that states a player can have 2 games where they take 1 game off in the first 80 games of the season (the last 2 games I wouldn't enforce it), after they've had their 2, 1-game stretches off any time they miss a game they have to miss 3.  Players then can't rest when healthy more than twice.  They'd take games off only when they need it.  If the intent of the 65 game rule is to eliminate healthy scratches, this makes more sense and more directly relates to the healthy scratches.