Don’t blame the players for load management, blame NBA teams

[Osmosis]

The bolded almost makes it sound like it's easier to get into the playoffs now than it was before, to the point you can decide to take games off. Meaning that's there's less competition for a playoff spot. Even though we keep being told this is the best era ever with the most talent ever

Meanwhile just 20 years ago franchise players were playing 82 games, including the MVP :



Are you saying it was harder to get into the playoffs 20 years ago than it is now?

No, what he's saying is that there is more data available on the benefits of rest on recovery/injury prevention that these teams adhere to. There's been an evolution in sports science and any team that plays their star players all 82 games is at a competitive disadvantage, especially with how the game is played now and the amount of distance players cover on a nightly basis compared to 20 years ago. Do you really believe it wouldn't hurt the Warriors chances in the playoffs if they were obligated to play Steph, Klay, and Draymond all 82 games?

 

[mbewane]

No, what he's saying is that there is more data available on the benefits of rest on recovery/injury prevention that these teams adhere to. There's been an evolution in sports science and any team that plays their star players all 82 games is at a competitive disadvantage, especially with how the game is played now and the amount of distance players cover on a nightly basis compared to 20 years ago. Do you really believe it wouldn't hurt the Warriors chances in the playoffs if they were obligated to play Steph, Klay, and Draymond all 82 games?

So we agree : in today's NBA you don't need to play your star players 82 games in order to be competitive.

 

[Osmosis]

So we agree : in today's NBA you don't need to play your star players 82 games in order to be competitive.

The 4th seed in the West this season is like two games ahead of the 12th seed. All of these teams would benefit tremendously if their star player was available and at the peak of their powers for every game but training staffs/organizations believe that there are diminishing returns in playing your star in every game of the season. Ultimately, if the data suggests that these players are more vulnerable to injuries without mandated rest then NBA teams will do what is necessary to protect their investment.

 

[mbewane]

The 4th seed in the West this season is like two games ahead of the 12th seed. All of these teams would benefit tremendously if their star player was available and at the peak of their powers for every game but training staffs/organizations believe that there are diminishing returns in playing your star in every game of the season. Ultimately, if the data suggests that these players are more vulnerable to injuries without mandated rest then NBA teams will do what is necessary to protect their investment.

Which is what I'm saying. They believe that having their best players on the court as much as possible during the RS isn't the best course of action to be competitive.

Ironically some of these teams might end up in the play-in and thus...have to play more games than if they had clinched a top 6 seed directly. Who knows, an extra game played here and there by a star player might have avoided those couple more games down the stretch. Oh well. They know better than fans and players.

 

[Software]

But it makes sense. If the goal of an nba team is to maximize itself to win a championship or to at least be competitive in the playoffs for revenue this comes with it.

These doctors and trainers are told to do this for business purposes. Ask yourself this just in terms of revenue would you have Dame Lillard and the revenue he generates (tickets, Shirts, seats, box office seats, etc) for 15/16 years or 11/12?

There’s your answer

Great example because Portland knows as soon as Dame is gone their revenue is gonna plummet. That's why they gave him that contract. It's an investment to keep him around and they'll load manage him until 2027 so he still plays at a level that will bring in revenue.

People forget the nba is a business first and foremost

 

[aceboon]

 

[Sonic Boom of the South]

Mafukkas really think they own the players like Pokémon


Sports fans and media like catty bytches

 

[Professor Emeritus]

On the one hand yeah it's s normal mindset in European football; If you're making deep Cup/Champions League runs than you have to account for extra games and not run your main players into the ground just cause u can

On the other hand they don't have a cap on roster size or a culture of standing players over being a diehard for one team

Baseball players been doing it since forever too. It's been normal for pitchers and batters both to take rests for decades.

Hell, even in Broadway plays the principle actors cycle in their understudies on a regular basis so they stay fresh.

 

[SchoolboyC]

So you're saying the stars in this graph were forced to play 82 games and were "ran into the ground". I don't remember these players having their careers cut short because of injuries as opposed to battling Father Time (except Baron Davis, who was injury prone since college) but ok.



Anyway the point still stands : in today's NBA management feels they can afford to pick and choose which games their star players are needed. That's either an indication of the level of competition ( I don't need my best guys on the court) or an argument against an 82 game season (since it's "smarter" to not have your star players play all the games).

It’s more of an argument against the 82 game season, but no one wants to deal with the revenue loss that comes with a shortened season.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

So we agree : in today's NBA you don't need to play your star players 82 games in order to be competitive.

That statement doesn't even make sense. Wouldn't that depend entirely on which team you were, how you were playing, and how deep your roster is? How could "today's NBA" have anything to do with it?

In 1999 Ewing got hurt in the 2nd round and the Knicks still made it to the Finals. In 1998 Pippen missed half the games and the Bulls still won 62 games and the title. Magic only played 37 games in 1981 yet the Lakers managed to go 28-17 in the games he missed and still got the #2 seed. Wilt missed 70 games in 1970 and Lakers still pulled the 2 seed and ended up making the Finals. Bill Russell played just 48 games one year and his team still won the division, going 16-8 in the games he missed.

Acts like stars "had" to play 82 games to remain competitive in previous eras is just silly. Sure that was true for some teams, but those teams were too thin. Same as today - Lakers couldn't remain competitive the last three seasons due to the games that AD and LBJ have missed. In all eras there's been deeper teams that could handle it fine.

 

[mbewane]

That statement doesn't even make sense. Wouldn't that depend entirely on which team you were, how you were playing, and how deep your roster is? How could "today's NBA" have anything to do with it?

In 1999 Ewing got hurt in the 2nd round and the Knicks still made it to the Finals. In 1998 Pippen missed half the games and the Bulls still won 62 games and the title. Magic only played 37 games in 1981 yet the Lakers managed to go 28-17 in the games he missed and still got the #2 seed. Wilt missed 70 games in 1970 and Lakers still pulled the 2 seed and ended up making the Finals. Bill Russell played just 48 games one year and his team still won the division, going 16-8 in the games he missed.

Acts like stars "had" to play 82 games to remain competitive in previous eras is just silly. Sure that was true for some teams, but those teams were too thin. Same as today - Lakers couldn't remain competitive the last three seasons due to the games that AD and LBJ have missed. In all eras there's been deeper teams that could handle it fine.

Your examples seem to be all injuries, not "load management/rest".

Brehs have been explaining this whole thread why staff and management would rather not have the players 82 games, and thus decide to rest them. They aren't injured, but staff decides it's in the teams (or the organization's) interest to not have them play 82 games.

Another reason is obviously revenue, which I was overlooking, thinking (as a fan) that the point was about being competitive night in and night out, when it's more about insuring revenue over multiple years :

Great example because Portland knows as soon as Dame is gone their revenue is gonna plummet. That's why they gave him that contract. It's an investment to keep him around and they'll load manage him until 2027 so he still plays at a level that will bring in revenue.

People forget the nba is a business first and foremost

All facts.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Your examples seem to be all injuries, not "load management/rest".

Of course, because load management/rest wasn't done in that era. But the question was whether teams in those eras could still be competitive with their stars sitting games, and they obviously could.

 

[mbewane]

Of course, because load management/rest wasn't done in that era. But the question was whether teams in those eras could still be competitive with their stars sitting games, and they obviously could.

Yes, but they were competitive despite actual injuries. Good for them, but I'm pretty sure those 5 teams you cited as examples spanning 3 decades are the exceptions rather than the norm. Pretty sure that if you go look at other teams that had their number one or two miss a big chunk of the season games they did not have great seasons. And obviously that load management didn't exist back then, not sure anyone would ask Russel or Magic etc to sit out games if they were good to go.