Very much in favor of the 65 game rule

[michigan adam]

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 really think this thinking misses the point.

It?s not about what?s reasonable to contend for awards. Voters make that decision.

It?s about what number creates the optimal pressure for players to avoid load managing without destroying integrity of the awards. That?s a fundamental differences

I had issue with your 50% proposal because no one in 50 years has made an all NBA team playing 50% of games. Adding that rule creates ZERO incentive to avoid load management. The rule actually has to be at a number of games where a player can actually miss the cutoff and deserve awards. The whole point is to create pressure in that specific situation

I think the point of this rule is to take some of the popularity OUT of the voting. How can a guy who played only 60 games be more valuable than a guy who played 82.  One of the greatest player abilities is availability. JT only will have played like 28 games this year. He should not me mvp, nor under consideration for all nba. But I give him a lot of credit for playing those games, at the highest level, to help his team, when most here thought it was a bad idea to play him. I like the 65 game rule. Now I wish defense played a bigger role in these after season accolades.

[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.

I really think this thinking misses the point.

It?s not about what?s reasonable to contend for awards. Voters make that decision.

It?s about what number creates the optimal pressure for players to avoid load managing without destroying integrity of the awards. That?s a fundamental differences

I had issue with your 50% proposal because no one in 50 years has made an all NBA team playing 50% of games. Adding that rule creates ZERO incentive to avoid load management. The rule actually has to be at a number of games where a player can actually miss the cutoff and deserve awards. The whole point is to create pressure in that specific situation

I think the point of this rule is to take some of the popularity OUT of the voting. How can a guy who played only 60 games be more valuable than a guy who played 82.  One of the greatest player abilities is availability. JT only will have played like 28 games this year. He should not me mvp, nor under consideration for all nba. But I give him a lot of credit for playing those games, at the highest level, to help his team, when most here thought it was a bad idea to play him. I like the 65 game rule. Now I wish defense played a bigger role in these after season accolades.

who was getting the awards playing 60 games over the guy playing 82 games?

[Roy H.]

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 really think this thinking misses the point.

It?s not about what?s reasonable to contend for awards. Voters make that decision.

It?s about what number creates the optimal pressure for players to avoid load managing without destroying integrity of the awards. That?s a fundamental differences

I had issue with your 50% proposal because no one in 50 years has made an all NBA team playing 50% of games. Adding that rule creates ZERO incentive to avoid load management. The rule actually has to be at a number of games where a player can actually miss the cutoff and deserve awards. The whole point is to create pressure in that specific situation

I think the point of this rule is to take some of the popularity OUT of the voting. How can a guy who played only 60 games be more valuable than a guy who played 82.  One of the greatest player abilities is availability. JT only will have played like 28 games this year. He should not me mvp, nor under consideration for all nba. But I give him a lot of credit for playing those games, at the highest level, to help his team, when most here thought it was a bad idea to play him. I like the 65 game rule. Now I wish defense played a bigger role in these after season accolades.

who was getting the awards playing 60 games over the guy playing 82 games?

Joel Embiid made All-NBA and All-Defense (and was 2nd in MVP) despite playing 51 games.

I think he's the most egregious recent example.  Bill Walton is the all-time answer, and I think he won that to recognize his two-year stretch more than anything he did in 1978 (when his season ended in February).

[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.

I really think this thinking misses the point.

It?s not about what?s reasonable to contend for awards. Voters make that decision.

It?s about what number creates the optimal pressure for players to avoid load managing without destroying integrity of the awards. That?s a fundamental differences

I had issue with your 50% proposal because no one in 50 years has made an all NBA team playing 50% of games. Adding that rule creates ZERO incentive to avoid load management. The rule actually has to be at a number of games where a player can actually miss the cutoff and deserve awards. The whole point is to create pressure in that specific situation

I think the point of this rule is to take some of the popularity OUT of the voting. How can a guy who played only 60 games be more valuable than a guy who played 82.  One of the greatest player abilities is availability. JT only will have played like 28 games this year. He should not me mvp, nor under consideration for all nba. But I give him a lot of credit for playing those games, at the highest level, to help his team, when most here thought it was a bad idea to play him. I like the 65 game rule. Now I wish defense played a bigger role in these after season accolades.

who was getting the awards playing 60 games over the guy playing 82 games?

Joel Embiid made All-NBA and All-Defense (and was 2nd in MVP) despite playing 51 games.

I think he's the most egregious recent example.  Bill Walton is the all-time answer, and I think he won that to recognize his two-year stretch more than anything he did in 1978 (when his season ended in February).

that was a covid season.  Are we really basing things on the covid seasons?

[Moranis]

That covid season, the Sixers were the top team in the East at 49-23. They were 39-12 with Embiid and 10-11 without him.  The ROY was Lamelo Ball who also only played 51 games.  Kawhi made the 1st team with 52 games.  LeBron was on the 2nd team with 45 games.  Butler had 52 games on the 3rd team. George and Irving each had 54 also on 3rd team. 

I think we forget just how weird those 2 seasons were.  Guys were missing games because of quarantine and they only played 72 total. 

The next year things went back to normal and you didn't see guys woth so few games making all nba teams or winning awards.