Very much in favor of the 65 game rule

[Donoghus]

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?

Is there anything to really indicate they wouldn't? Jokic has averaged around 74 games a season and Wemby played 71 in his rookie year and was on a similar pace last year before the shoulder thing? Not to mention they're both fighting for playoff seed positioning.

Those two aren't exactly Joel Embiids.

[Moranis]

This year for the active former MVP

SGA will be the lowest games in last 3 years, maybe 4
Jokic lowest games in his career
Embiid still hurt all the time
Giannis major injury and lowest games in his career by nearly 50%
Harden less than any time in LA
Westbrook 3rd lowest games in career (percentage wise)
Curry lowest of his career other than the 5 and 26 game seasons
Durant more than last year but similar to year before
LeBron 3rd lowest of his career

That is every MVP since Rose won the award in 2011. They aren't actually playing more.  They are in fact mostly playing less. 

If we look at the guys on the All NBA Teams last year

Giannis, SGA, Jokic, Curry, LeBron, Harden are above

Here are the others
Tatum and Haliburton major injuries barely played or hasn't
Mitchell about the same
Brunson more than last year but less than year before
Edwards  by far lowest of career
Mobley lower than last year
Cunningham lower than last year
Towns slightly more if he stays on pace
Williams major injury about 1/3 games of any other season in his career

Is this new rule actually doing anything other than potentially hurting player's pocketbook or making teams pay more for lesser deserving players.  I mean if Cade Cunningham doesnt make an All NBA team this year someone else will who may have only played 4 more games than Cade and now that person may qualify for an undeserved supermax.  Cade's future HOF status and earning potential is harmed. At least Cade already got the supermax requirements, but there will come a time where this rule significantly impacts a player.

[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.

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?

Is there anything to really indicate they wouldn't? Jokic has averaged around 74 games a season and Wemby played 71 in his rookie year and was on a similar pace last year before the shoulder thing? Not to mention they're both fighting for playoff seed positioning.

Those two aren't exactly Joel Embiids.

Exactly. And even Embiid played 66 games his MVP season. 

[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?

Is there anything to really indicate they wouldn't? Jokic has averaged around 74 games a season and Wemby played 71 in his rookie year and was on a similar pace last year before the shoulder thing? Not to mention they're both fighting for playoff seed positioning.

Those two aren't exactly Joel Embiids.

That's a good point. I didn't realize that.

[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.

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%).

You're right -- not "as many as possible." Let's say "a reasonable amount if you want to be in the running for an award." And I understand that "reasonable amount" is subjective, so the final number is negotiable, IMO, but we all know that there has to be a line somewhere. People can quibble and complain about the exact number, but even though injuries are a legit issue, players shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it too by resting a ridiculous amount and still getting accolades.

A lot of this "load management" is done to preserve guys for the playoffs, so it seems strange to me that guys want to, essentially, miss as much of the regular season as possible, in order to be as fresh as possible for the postseason, but still get the regular-season accolades they think they deserve despite missing a bunch of time in the regular season.

Besides that, fans want to see players play. That's what they pay for. And that's what these guys are paid to do, so I don't think they should get rewarded for their play when they aren't even playing as much as they could be.

[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%).

You're right -- not "as many as possible." Let's say "a reasonable amount if you want to be in the running for an award." And I understand that "reasonable amount" is subjective, so the final number is negotiable, IMO, but we all know that there has to be a line somewhere. People can quibble and complain about the exact number, but even though injuries are a legit issue, players shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it too by resting a ridiculous amount and still getting accolades.

A lot of this "load management" is done to preserve guys for the playoffs, so it seems strange to me that guys want to, essentially, miss as much of the regular season as possible, in order to be as fresh as possible for the postseason, but still get the regular-season accolades they think they deserve despite missing a bunch of time in the regular season.

Besides that, fans want to see players play. That's what they pay for. And that's what these guys are paid to do, so I don't think they should get rewarded for their play when they aren't even playing as much as they could be.

I agree with you on every point.

[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.

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%).

You're right -- not "as many as possible." Let's say "a reasonable amount if you want to be in the running for an award." And I understand that "reasonable amount" is subjective, so the final number is negotiable, IMO, but we all know that there has to be a line somewhere. People can quibble and complain about the exact number, but even though injuries are a legit issue, players shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it too by resting a ridiculous amount and still getting accolades.

A lot of this "load management" is done to preserve guys for the playoffs, so it seems strange to me that guys want to, essentially, miss as much of the regular season as possible, in order to be as fresh as possible for the postseason, but still get the regular-season accolades they think they deserve despite missing a bunch of time in the regular season.

Besides that, fans want to see players play. That's what they pay for. And that's what these guys are paid to do, so I don't think they should get rewarded for their play when they aren't even playing as much as they could be.

you keep saying these things, but who exactly isnt playing as much as they could be?  What examples do you have that really limits this.  I know every once in awhile, especially on back to back games, players take off, but where is this widespread resting you are complaining about. 

Who are these people that were getting rewarded for not playing games.  I think if you actually looked at the number of games played from people on the all nba teams, you are going to be surprised.

Simply put, the league didn't need this rule at all.  It hasn't really affected how teams utilize the players and how the players play.  It hasn't solved the imaginary problem at all.  It just creates a stupid artificial rule that affects people livelihoods.