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. 

[aefgogreen]

Lots of interesting perspectives and IDs. Glad everyone stayed respectful as well!

[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.

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.

If that is true, then the rule is misguided.  Take Jokic for example, he has missed some games purely due to load management but the majority of the games he has missed is due to a legitimate injury.  Same with Cunningham, same with SGA.  If you get a player like Kawhi Leonard, whose knees are about shot, he may be load managed to a point where he gets below 65 games, but he won't be getting MVP votes.  And I don't think this rule will affect how many games that Kawhi plays.  They are going to rest him as much as they need to.

Resting a player for purposes of tanking is different than load management.  I see tanking as a real issue, I don't see load management as something that can be eliminated.

Another way to approach is to look at stats from a season total standpoint, not average per game.  Who scored the most total points.  Who got the most total rebounds.  If someone was changing the scoring title, they might stay in some games to get more points.

[aefgogreen]

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.

If that is true, then the rule is misguided.  Take Jokic for example, he has missed some games purely due to load management but the majority of the games he has missed is due to a legitimate injury.  Same with Cunningham, same with SGA.  If you get a player like Kawhi Leonard, whose knees are about shot, he may be load managed to a point where he gets below 65 games, but he won't be getting MVP votes.  And I don't think this rule will affect how many games that Kawhi plays.  They are going to rest him as much as they need to.

Resting a player for purposes of tanking is different than load management.  I see tanking as a real issue, I don't see load management as something that can be eliminated.

Another way to approach is to look at stats from a season total standpoint, not average per game.  Who scored the most total points.  Who got the most total rebounds.  If someone was changing the scoring title, they might stay in some games to get more points.

Yes, Jokic missed many games due to injury.  The reason that he is not load managing now is because he needs to play to qualify for awards.  Thus, I feel the rule is doing what it should. Fans get to see him in games he'd otherwise miss. As I mentioned earlier, Denver and Jokic have the option to sit him if they feel him being well rested is more important than his role as an NBA star. But if they do that too much, he won't be eligible for certain honors. I think this is a market based approach - rather than try to implement fines or suspensions, they create incentives. Is it unfair that Cade has a legit injury and will miss out? Yes, but if these situations are flukes, than the players would have either a great resume already or the opportunity to build one. I have no doubt Cade will be up for honors in the future. In the meantime, when he comes back, he is still eligible for ECF MVP, Finals MVP and the chance to win a championship.

[Vermont Green]

Continuing on the Jokic example, DEN is trying to win games.  They want playoff seeding, home court.  They may rest Jokic in the second of a back to back, but I don't see them just giving him nights off for general rest.  He has played every game since returning from injury on Jan 30, averaging 36 min per.  And if they do decide to give him a night off here and there, I don't see that as a problem.  They are trying to win.  Why punish the team or the player for this?

Tanking is different.  Take MIL for example.  Is Giannis really hurt?  He has been hurt.  The more he plays, the more risk of injury.  But if MIL decides to "rest" Giannis for the rest of the season, you have to assume that tanking is a consideration.  Similar to OKC a few years back when they wouldn't play Horford.  They were not trying to win.  Their version was that they wanted to develop younger players.  Others might call that tanking.  This is all very different than trying to nurse Kawhi Leonard along so that he can play in the playoffs.  Should LAC be punished for that?  Should Kawhi?

[aefgogreen]

Continuing on the Jokic example, DEN is trying to win games.  They want playoff seeding, home court.  They may rest Jokic in the second of a back to back, but I don't see them just giving him nights off for general rest.  He has played every game since returning from injury on Jan 30, averaging 36 min per.  And if they do decide to give him a night off here and there, I don't see that as a problem.  They are trying to win.  Why punish the team or the player for this?

I think he has played just about every game since the injury because they want him eligible for awards, not just to win.  Your point about him averaging 36 minutes is valid.  My guess is that if he only plays the minimum 20 it will affect his stats enough to hurt his chances of getting honors.  If they want to give him a night off, they should be allowed. But if they do it too much (and disappoint too many fans), I think it is fair that it affect his eligibility.

[Vermont Green]

Continuing on the Jokic example, DEN is trying to win games.  They want playoff seeding, home court.  They may rest Jokic in the second of a back to back, but I don't see them just giving him nights off for general rest.  He has played every game since returning from injury on Jan 30, averaging 36 min per.  And if they do decide to give him a night off here and there, I don't see that as a problem.  They are trying to win.  Why punish the team or the player for this?

I think he has played just about every game since the injury because they want him eligible for awards, not just to win.  Your point about him averaging 36 minutes is valid.  My guess is that if he only plays the minimum 20 it will affect his stats enough to hurt his chances of getting honors.  If they want to give him a night off, they should be allowed. But if they do it too much (and disappoint too many fans), I think it is fair that it affect his eligibility.

I think they want to win, but I don't know.  Maybe he has incentives in his contract for winning honors, so he wants to play.  But if I was DEN, and had a back to back, and Jokic looked like his ankle was a little sore, I would be inclined to rest him.  I would care more about having him healthy for the playoffs rather than being eligible for an award he has already won a couple of times.  And is it really good for the NBA if they play him in that instance?  Wear him down so maybe he can't play in the playoffs?  Is that what the DEN fans would want?

Imagine a scenario where it is the last game of the season, in a game that does not impact playoff seeding, and he goes out and plays 15.1 minutes with the 2-way guys just so he is eligible for an award.  What does that accomplish?  To me, that is just silly.  I would rather not see it.  Kind of like Josh Allen taking 1 snap just to keep his streak alive.

I am all for fixing tanking.  I am far less concerned with legitimate load management.  I don't think teams or players should be punished for it if it is truly about winning, not losing as is the case with tanking.

[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.

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

If it's about achieving something, the current rule works?it's forcing star players to play as many games as possible if they want to qualify for awards, and it's allowing fans to see star players more often.

[aefgogreen]

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.

If it's about achieving something, the current rule works?it's forcing star players to play as many games as possible if they want to qualify for awards, and it's allowing fans to see star players more often.

It's hardly as many games as possible. It's just under 80%.  And I'd be fine if they dropped it to 62 games (about 75%).

[Moranis]

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.

If it's about achieving something, the current rule works?it's forcing star players to play as many games as possible if they want to qualify for awards, and it's allowing fans to see star players more often.

is it?  Are star players actually playing more?  I'm not so sure that is the case. 

[aefgogreen]

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.

If it's about achieving something, the current rule works?it's forcing star players to play as many games as possible if they want to qualify for awards, and it's allowing fans to see star players more often.

is it?  Are star players actually playing more?  I'm not so sure that is the case.

Do you think Wemby an Jokic would have played this many games of late if being eligible for honors and awards weren't on the line?