As a whole, the NBA has lost around 45% of its viewership since 2012.

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

But for some reason we allow the NBA to do that to us on a nightly basis by doing load management.

Imagine the NFL trying to have Patrick Mahomes versus Josh Allen on their marquee matchup on Sunday and then those two dudes the last minute sat out the game and you got Mitch Trubisky vs Carson Wentz.

These dudes got access to every single thing imaginable when it comes to medical facilities, data management of their bodies, sleep studies, massages, shoes that are specific for them, therapists, first class flights, food and hydration experts and be missing 30 fukkin games while their commissioner swear up and down it ain't no problem.

Anthony Richardson got crucified when he pulled himself out of a game for a play and got benched.

In the NBA that's just Tuesday.

This is a bit of a false equivalence given how long the NBA season is compared to the NFL.

You're comparing teams playing 82 games where they have to constantly travel and play, to a sport that only plays once a week. If the NBA season was shortened in relation to the NFL season (say 50-60 games), there wouldn't be the same degree of load management.

Almost all of these "load management" cases are either players dealing with lingering injuries, and it makes no sense to risk them on a road trip with 4 games in 6 nights, or older players (like Bron, Steph, Harden etc). NBA teams have to be smarter and protect their investements (especially given how great their monetary value is now) and not just play every single game for the sake of, at the sacrifice of them breaking down and getting injured and being out longer than a game.

Also you have to remember players are coming into the league now with more mileage on their bodies; kids are playing competitively from a much younger age and they're playing more and more games during the year. Players are having to cover more ground (due to the nature of defending 3s), all at a rapid pace. Long gone are the days where there's 1v1 ISO ball and other the rest of the players stood around and watched, all at a slow pace.

Now players are sprinting all over the floor to stop open 3s.

It takes a greater physical toll on the body.

Furthermore, there's actually been a decrease in "load management" over the past season given the 65-game threshold now -

And despite that player policy to get players to player more games to be eligible for awards, it's had a negative effect.

Haliburton sacrificed his health last season, returning prematurely from an injury so he could meet that threshold, instead of resting like he would've otherwise did. To the point where his injury has had a long-term effect on his play. He still isn't right this season (an injury that other players have had that took them 1-2 years to ger over).

Tyrese Haliburton injury, explained: Why NBA fans blame 65-game rule for Pacers star's leg and hamstring issue | Sporting News

It's unclear how much time Haliburton will miss with the injury, if any, but it's causing NBA fans to blame a newly implemented rule. Here's why.

www.sportingnews.com

"During a mid-February appearance on JJ Redikk's "Old Man & The Three" podcast, Haliburton admitted that the NBA's new 65-game rule for end-of-season awards impacted his decision to return prematurely.

"If (the 65-game rule) was never the case, I might have been like, maybe give it another game or two, you know, let me think more through this," Haliburton admitted. "Let's try to be 100 percent."

Redikk called it a $53 million incentive to return, referring to the contract incentives Haliburton would receive if he were to earn an end-of-season honor.

Had the rule not been in place, it is unclear how long Haliburton would have been sidelined with his hamstring injury in January. And while the decision to return paid off in more ways than one, the attrition down the stretch from the wear and tear of a 69-game workload is causing valid concerns."

Forcing players to play through injuries just because y'all don't like "load management" can actually have an even worse outcome.

 

[Emoryal]

Illegal streams

 

[bl2k8]

To that point around different identities.

A lot of the criticism around today's game and how everyone plays the same, is no different to past areas. The NBA has always been a copycat league, so it's weird to me now how the complaints are centered around the product being boring because everyone plays the same. That's always been a thing. The league has always followed trends that its set for itself. I think a lot of cats mistake the oversaturation of having access to all these games and equate it to players/teams playing the same more than they once did.

Furthermore, Gen Z only really know this positionless era, where all players can handle the ball, shoot, playmake etc, so if the game were to return to a more traditional world where PGs only distributed, 2s/wings only scored, and bigs stayed in the paint, they too would be fair in critcizing the game for every team playing the same.

It seems lost on a lot of folks that because all positions have the freedom of doing what they want on the floor now, it brings a different type of versatility that once upon time didn't exist. No longer are players handicapped by traditional roles that set by the positions they play.

So, essentially, you're saying that it's about who wins, right? Nobody fukks with DeRozan because he's a loser?

My point exactly.

If JG and Ivey started taking more middies nobody is gonna give a fukk about them if they continue to lose. Changing their shot diet isn't going to make them more watchable, which is the mistake that folks make who're criticizing them taking 3s. If you're a bad player and you lose, it literally doesn't matter what shots you take, because it's not going to get eyeballs on you.

My g, those are the bad teams.

They're not the good teams. It's not even the league-average.

Nobody wants to see bad teams, period. Who the fukk wants to watch the Hornets without Melo? It stands to reason a team like Charlotte is going to struggle to generate quality shots without their best player/playmaker. Did anyone really want to watch the '97 Grizzlies besides diehard fans? Did anyone really want to watch a team that rarely every scored over 90 points, and couldn't generate consistent offense to save their lives?

Why do you pretend like bad teams haven't missed high volume of shots before today's era? You had scorelines during the 90s where teams went 70-50, were they not missing a substantial amount of shots, relatively?

Breh you bringing up people watching styles of hoop in the 90s when that’s the period where people watched it the most. I didn’t say shyt about the 90’s. I’ve said it before, nba wanted social media glory and now their DIEHARDS like myself are pushing back on them and some people want to stick their head in the sand and act like everything is ok.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Breh you bringing up people watching styles of hoop in the 90s when that’s the period where people watched it the most. I didn’t say shyt about the 90’s. I’ve said it before, nba wanted social media glory and now their DIEHARDS like myself are pushing back on them and some people want to stick their head in the sand and act like everything is ok.

People have always pushed back on the product of the NBA.

What makes y'all who don't like today's game any different?

Well, everything is fine, in relation. The NBA just signed a $77 billion media rights deal; the NBA is more popular, globally, than it's ever been; NBA fandom in this country has increased since 2019; more people in this country are playing hoops than ever before.

That doesn't mean the product is perfect (or even close to it). It just means y'all need to stop acting like the game is dying. Because it's not.

 

[Bleed The Freak]

This is a bit of a false equivalence given how long the NBA season is compared to the NFL.

You're comparing teams playing 82 games where they have to constantly travel and play, to a sport that only plays once a week. If the NBA season was shortened in relation to the NFL season (say 50-60 games), there wouldn't be the same degree of load management.

Almost all of these "load management" cases are either players dealing with lingering injuries, and it makes no sense to risk them on a road trip with 4 games in 6 nights, or older players (like Bron, Steph, Harden etc). NBA teams have to be smarter and protect their investements (especially given how great their monetary value is now) and not just play every single game for the sake of, at the sacrifice of them breaking down and getting injured and being out longer than a game.

Also you have to remember players are coming into the league now with more mileage on their bodies; kids are playing competitively from a much younger age and they're playing more and more games during the year. Players are having to cover more ground (due to the nature of defending 3s), all at a rapid pace. Long gone are the days where there's 1v1 ISO ball and other the rest of the players stood around and watched, all at a slow pace.

Now players are sprinting all over the floor to stop open 3s.

It takes a greater physical toll on the body.

Furthermore, there's actually been a decrease in "load management" over the past season given the 65-game threshold now -

And despite that player policy to get players to player more games to be eligible for awards, it's had a negative effect.

Haliburton sacrificed his health last season, returning prematurely from an injury so he could meet that threshold, instead of resting like he would've otherwise did. To the point where his injury has had a long-term effect on his play. He still isn't right this season (an injury that other players have had that took them 1-2 years to ger over).

Tyrese Haliburton injury, explained: Why NBA fans blame 65-game rule for Pacers star's leg and hamstring issue | Sporting News

It's unclear how much time Haliburton will miss with the injury, if any, but it's causing NBA fans to blame a newly implemented rule. Here's why.

www.sportingnews.com

"During a mid-February appearance on JJ Redikk's "Old Man & The Three" podcast, Haliburton admitted that the NBA's new 65-game rule for end-of-season awards impacted his decision to return prematurely.

"If (the 65-game rule) was never the case, I might have been like, maybe give it another game or two, you know, let me think more through this," Haliburton admitted. "Let's try to be 100 percent."

Redikk called it a $53 million incentive to return, referring to the contract incentives Haliburton would receive if he were to earn an end-of-season honor.

Had the rule not been in place, it is unclear how long Haliburton would have been sidelined with his hamstring injury in January. And while the decision to return paid off in more ways than one, the attrition down the stretch from the wear and tear of a 69-game workload is causing valid concerns."

Forcing players to play through injuries just because y'all don't like "load management" can actually have an even worse outcome.

These guys are getting paid more money than at any point in the history of the league and it's not even close.

I'm not saying guys don't put a lot of stress on their bodies and they absolutely deserve if they have a legitimate injury to sit.

Guys who are 34 or 35 years old and been a league 10-15 years I understand if they have to sit out a game or
play 20 minutes if they had 4 games in a week. Ewing who has shyt for knees in like a 10-year stretch missed like 10-15 games

Gilbert Arenas even said the reason why guys are getting hurt so much more is because they sit so much now.

But do not tell me that someone like Zion Williamson who has been in the league for 5 -6 years can't control his weight and is happily collecting 200 million is trying his best to be in shape.

Guys were playing 75, 80, 82 games making 1/5 less and the All-Star game was competitive too.

There's absolutely zero reason for a team to shoot 45 three-pointers in a game. NONE! Shots in the league have turned into "fukk it" now.. dudes be on the fast break and don't even attempt to do a dunk or a layup they literally stop at the three-point line. It's disgusting to watch

 

[SchoolboyC]

@Gil Scott-Heroin @In The Zone '98

I think both of y’all are right to a degree

Gil is right that there always have been bad and mediocre teams and naturally they are going to play bad and mediocre basketball. The Hornets fukking suck even with LaMelo, and are almost unwatchable without him. The Bulls are perhaps the most perpetually mediocre team in the league.

So yeah them missing 75 3s is a horrible product to watch and I don’t think anyone is arguing otherwise. But also we have to be honest in saying games between two teams of their caliber are usually bad anyway. I was on the Coli in 2015, no one was checking for a Magic vs 76ers game back then even with a much lower volume of 3s. Why? Bc an ass team playing a mid team has rarely ever been considered a fun product

And he’s right that outlier games happen and it’s bizarre to react like the outlier is the norm when it’s not

However the other side of it is, a lot of fans don’t really give a shyt about efficiency and the numbers, they take things at face value. They’re not going to care that 21-55 from 3 is technically an efficient night, they’re going to focus on the fact that they just saw that team miss 34 3s.

Also people like cool shyt. Tyrese Haliburton going 7-18 from 3 doesn’t hit like Steph doing it even if the statline is the equal, the same way that Jerry Stackhouse going 9-20 on 2s didn’t hit like A.I. doing it.

The way basketball is played has changed drastically over the past decade and the more we talk about it, I do think grace has to be given. When I was a kid, if a 3 on 1 (or even 2 on 1) ended in anything other than a shot at the rim, that was bad basketball. If you came down court and immediately took a pull up 3 you were getting benched, because that was bad basketball. The “drive and kick” was nowhere near as prevalent. So it’s understandable that some ppl have a visceral reaction to it, bc well we’ve been taught that this isn’t how you’re supposed to play

Anywho, just my two cents that no one asked for

 

[In The Zone '98]

@Gil Scott-Heroin @In The Zone '98
Anywho, just my two cents that no one asked for

Wemby is 7'4, shooting 9 threes a game

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

 

[SchoolboyC]

Wemby is 7'4, shooting 9 threes a game

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

That’s what happens when you train with Jamal Crawford instead of Hakeem

 

[FTBS]

For those saying they shoot to many 3s...whats the alternative? Is a midrange J more aestetically pleasing than the same shot 5-10 feet further back? You cant post or drive consistently without shooting to open that up for you. So without rules being changed what are they supposed to do?

Mind you, I am not a fan of how 3 centric it is either. But I understand and accept that this is what the rules dictate.

 

[cartierhoe]

@Gil Scott-Heroin @In The Zone '98

I think both of y’all are right to a degree

Gil is right that there always have been bad and mediocre teams and naturally they are going to play bad and mediocre basketball. The Hornets fukking suck even with LaMelo, and are almost unwatchable without him. The Bulls are perhaps the most perpetually mediocre team in the league.

So yeah them missing 75 3s is a horrible product to watch and I don’t think anyone is arguing otherwise. But also we have to be honest in saying games between two teams of their caliber are usually bad anyway. I was on the Coli in 2015, no one was checking for a Magic vs 76ers game back then even with a much lower volume of 3s. Why? Bc an ass team playing a mid team has rarely ever been considered a fun product

And he’s right that outlier games happen and it’s bizarre to react like the outlier is the norm when it’s not

However the other side of it is, a lot of fans don’t really give a shyt about efficiency and the numbers, they take things at face value. They’re not going to care that 21-55 from 3 is technically an efficient night, they’re going to focus on the fact that they just saw that team miss 34 3s.

Also people like cool shyt. Tyrese Haliburton going 7-18 from 3 doesn’t hit like Steph doing it even if the statline is the equal, the same way that Jerry Stackhouse going 9-20 on 2s didn’t hit like A.I. doing it.

The way basketball is played has changed drastically over the past decade and the more we talk about it, I do think grace has to be given. When I was a kid, if a 3 on 1 (or even 2 on 1) ended in anything other than a shot at the rim, that was bad basketball. If you came down court and immediately took a pull up 3 you were getting benched, because that was bad basketball. The “drive and kick” was nowhere near as prevalent. So it’s understandable that some ppl have a visceral reaction to it, bc well we’ve been taught that this isn’t how you’re supposed to play

Anywho, just my two cents that no one asked for

Thank you, to the bolded I said this exact thing a couple weeks ago and I got bashed for it. Casuals don’t care about all that, all they see is 3 pointers going up at a very high rate, and to them that’s bad basketball if everyone is doing it. To act as if this isn't a complaint for a lot of people means you aren't living in reality. And before yall quote me (not you @SchoolboyC) and act like this is my personal opinion, it's not. I'm a basketball junkie and yall always see me in game threads and the observations thread. This is simply the opinion from a lot of people who quit watching. Just because it is the "better" shot most of the time doesn't mean people necessarily enjoy the play style. Again, not my personal opinion.

 

[tremonthustler1]

There's absolutely zero reason for a team to shoot 45 three-pointers in a game. NONE! Shots in the league have turned into "fukk it" now.. dudes be on the fast break and don't even attempt to do a dunk or a layup they literally stop at the three-point line. It's disgusting to watch

of course there is, especially if they go in.


Is there a reason for a team to shoot 45 contested mid range shots?

 

[In The Zone '98]

of course there is, especially if they go in.

But they're not going in, lol

If you're shooting more at the same percentage. It means you're missing wayyyy more

 

[tremonthustler1]

But they're not going in, lol

If you're shooting more at the same percentage. It means you're missing wayyyy more

when teams lose, they tend to not go in. If you're shooting well from 3, you have to be one sloppy ass team to lose games.

A miss is a miss regardless. They're just missing from outside as opposed to those top of the key shots that nobody really takes anymore. Before, that shot, basically the old college three was the spot where if a big made it from there you were scared. Now they have more range. We're overestimating the ability of some of these guys' ability to make shots if they were just a step or two inside the three point line. Like I pointed out about Jalen Green, some of these guys are just bad shooters, period.

 

[FTBS]

Thank you, to the bolded I said this exact thing a couple weeks ago and I got bashed for it. Casuals don’t care about all that, all they see is 3 pointers going up at a very high rate, and to them that’s bad basketball if everyone is doing it. To act as if this isn't a complaint for a lot of people means you aren't living in reality. And before yall quote me (not you @SchoolboyC) and act like this is my personal opinion, it's not. I'm a basketball junkie and yall always see me in game threads and the observations thread. This is simply the opinion from a lot of people who quit watching. Just because it is the "better" shot most of the time doesn't mean people necessarily enjoy the play style. Again, not my personal opinion.

What play style do people enjoy? The up and down, original style had basketball in at best 6th place in the American consciousness and the Finals on tape delay before Magic and Bird. The rugby ball of the 90s/00s started getting record low numbers after Mike retired. So what exactly is the style people want? Or is it even about the style to begin with? High periods of interest coincide with trascendent personalities/controversy regardless of style. Magic/Bird, Mike, Decision, Steph. A different style each time.

 

[cartierhoe]

What play style do people enjoy? The up and down, original style had basketball in at best 6th place in the American consciousness and the Finals on tape delay before Magic and Bird. The rugby ball of the 90s/00s started getting record low numbers after Mike retired. So what exactly is the style people want? Or is it even about the style to begin with? High periods of interest coincide with trascendent personalities/controversy regardless of style. Magic/Bird, Mike, Decision, Steph. A different style each time.

I can't answer that question for you, the NBA isn't trying to get me to watch, I'm going to regardless. I agree on the transcendent star(s) getting the masses to tune in, which means there's a multitude of reasons why people aren't watching. Never said play style is the sole reason, just one of them.