As you noted, this won't fully fix the problems of older vets that don't care anymore, but it's probably the best they can do. I haven't heard a better idea for combatting the load management issue in a way that benefits fans.
New 7 Year CBA Deal Done
- Thread starter NoXInNixon
- Start date
It really is about time for this. I bet many players are very happy about this.
Oh dear god. Not more sports gambling thrown in our faces. Talking to people in Australia, who've had legalized sports betting for a long time, it's bound to get much, much worse. Can we turn back the SC decision please?
Can they only invest in their own teams, I'm assuming? There wouldn't be any conflict there, would there? It would be weird if Lebron was allowed to invest in the Clippers.
I get your point, but it's also true that nearly every player mentioned there has had his team underperform, severely in most cases, due to that player missing lots of games.
At a certain point, these are regular season awards, and the ineligibility is reflecting what happened on the court quite well.
Agreed. If load management works -- if it reduces chronic fatigue -- then you are either giving credit to players based on minutes/games played or you are penalizing them for playing games. It's simply easier to be more efficient if you are only playing 60 games than if you are having to play 75. And it's easier to be efficient if you are playing 33 minutes a game instead of 38.
The media bitches about players not playing games, then when it comes to awards, penalizes players for not load managing and playing games. It's moronic.
The media bitches about players not playing games, then when it comes to awards, penalizes players for not load managing and playing games. It's moronic.
Players get traded, too.
Future Ish Smith is going to have a stake in half the NBA teams.
”Forty years too late, if you ask me.” - Robert Parish
I wonder how NBA powers are going to feel when active players have their own branded cannabis strains.
I heard that the Anthony Edwards Kush live rosin is fire. 72% THC.
Or their own branded cannabis stores.
I think we will need to see more details. Presumably the league and NBAPA have hired some expensive attorneys to come up with various corporate structures that allow players to potentially get a small slice of shares of the limited partnerships that own most (if not all) NBA teams. And a traded player or free agent may very well be automatically divested of the shares as part of the process.
And as to your last question there are probably limits to how much an individual player can get. I don't believe the CBA will allow a player to obtain, for example, 40% ownership of a NBA team. But details seem scarce now, so we'll see what emerges.
Should we call it the Lebron rule now or wait until he's actually a player/owner of the Vegas expansion team?
I wouldn't be surprised if the ownership stakes were not straight equity (stock) in perpetuity BUT an annual cash flow payout/based on team revenue for the year. More of a profit share.
So if a player signed for $30MM/yr, he could have the option upfront to turn it into $20MM + % of team revenue (that equaled $10MM the previous season). That way the player participates in the upside if the team is successful that season. It could be for a year or however long the contract is.
Just note the Celtics were a publicly listed company when Wyc + Co purchased them. I doubt players & their agents were all that excited to take equity stakes back then.
If it is straight equity, I'm sure they'll learn about dilution & C-Suite accounting shenanigans the hard way.
So if a player signed for $30MM/yr, he could have the option upfront to turn it into $20MM + % of team revenue (that equaled $10MM the previous season). That way the player participates in the upside if the team is successful that season. It could be for a year or however long the contract is.
Just note the Celtics were a publicly listed company when Wyc + Co purchased them. I doubt players & their agents were all that excited to take equity stakes back then.
If it is straight equity, I'm sure they'll learn about dilution & C-Suite accounting shenanigans the hard way.
I mean, maybe I'm crazy, but I think the best players in the league should make the all-NBA team. I want LeBron on that all-NBA team because he was the better player.
I just disagree with all 3 of these points.
1. It's worth getting fired up over the situation because it could be putting a player in a position where he is choosing to play in games for selfish reasons, over putting their teams in the best position to win in the playoffs. I don't think players, for the most part, are just choosing to load manage because they don't want to play. It's their teams load managing them because they want them to have a better chance of being healthy for the post season.
2. I don't really care much about what generations before have done. Times have changed. Teams are smarter now in managing the health of their megamillion dollar assets. And the older guys you mention being managed, LeBron, Durant, Curry, Kawhi, AD, being managed into post season award ineligibility seems absurd to me.
3. Yes, the playoffs often feel like that standard war of attrition. So, do you think trying to force guys to play more in the much less meaningful regular season is going to make that war of attrition lessen?
Yes. As in my example provided earlier, if Giannis finished this season at 64 games played, he's still a better player than any other forward that played more games than him. Absolutely no question.
Actually, there are holes in his game (shooting) that make me disagree with that statement even if he played 82 games.
But the real question then is “Where do you draw the line?” If he played 41 games, is that too few? How about 30? 10? 1? Should LeBron be on the all NBA team if he doesn’t play at all?
I mean, Giannis is still the best player in the world if he suffers a major injury and plays 20 games. Does he still deserve the MVP in that case? I don’t think the awards should be career achievements, but rather reflect a player’s impact on a given season which requires playing a lot of games.
Agreed. The ole Availability is the greatest Ability saw
There is no one magic metric, but maybe use stats that weigh games played (VORP?) more than the standard per-game stats.
Also ALL-NBA/MVP are regular season awards, so every stat/win gathered in the playoffs is worth zero.
JB doesn't really fare well using VORP, WS, BOX score metrics that still weigh per game.
Who are the TOP15 in DARKO?
These are basically the same question, so I'll answer both at once.
I don't draw a line. I let the voters figure it out just like they always have.
Some voters might think 50 games is enough. Some might think 55 games. Maybe some think it 60 games, or 41 games.
I don't see how this has been a problem in the past. Voters weigh do I think less games of LeBron James is more deserving than more games of a lesser player.
Who's in the awards mix this year that are going to play less than 65 games due to load management? On a quick look, I think Kawhi has missed the most games where he just missed a single game with 12. Ja has missed 8 that way. Lebron and AD 6. Steph 4. Durant has missed 1!
This new threshold isn't going to stop load management. It's just going to eliminate players who suffered an injury.
It would be weird but would it really matter? In todays NBA business environment, each of the teams are essentially business partners rather than competitors. Maybe 98% partners, 2% competing for market share? I may be too generous on the latter.
I agree with the poster above as this being poorly disguised for LeBron’s ownership in the Las Vegas franchise. This could indicate expansion is going to come very quick…..as it really should. If not for Covid we’d likely have had two more teams by next year if we didn’t already have them today.
This is a long way to say that the regular season is just an extended preseason before the playoffs, that's a good thing because the only thing that matters is winning a title, and anything that could possibly increase one's title odds should be allowed even if it devalues the regular season even further, and players shouldn't be penalized (by withholding regular season awards) for acknowledging this. That's a totally acceptable way of looking at things, but I'm comfortable saying it's bad for the future of the league and I'm very happy they are taking steps to try to push back.
Looking at this specifically, they aren't ineligible for postseason awards (unless I'm missing something, you can play just 40 games and still end up winning the finals MVP). They will end up being ineligible for regular season awards, which I'm more than fine with given that it's meant to reward regular season play. In a perfect world we'd trust the media to make this judgement on their own, but it ain't happening (Embiid finishing 2nd in the MVP voting in 2021 with just 51 games played, even in a covid shortened season, was fucking gross). These are regular season awards, if you miss almost a quarter of the regular season, I'm very much ok with that disqualifying you from a regular season honor.
I butchered that sentence. I meant regular season awards, not post season awards.
Yep. Minutes is a much better way to measure superstar involvement over GPs. It's laughable.
I'm sure it wasn't lost on the players/teams that GPs can be manipulated. While they can enter Broadcast negotiations with an attitude that they have started to address superstar load management.
I know EPM and LEBRON have their own wins added stat, which rewards games played. RPM too, but that stat is broken lol.
Darko doesn’t have the wins added because it’s a projection, but the top 15 is
Jokic
Embiid
Giannis
Tatum
Kawhi
Durant
Holiday
LeBron
PG
Steph
Dame
Harden
Kyrie
Luka
Mitchell
EPM top 15 in wins added
Jokic 17.4
Tatum 15.6
Embiid 15.2
Luka 14.7
Dame 14.3
Butler 14
SGA 13.9
Mitchell 12.6
Giannis 12.2
Garland 12.2
Kyrie 12.1
Markkanen 11.9
Randle 11.7
Harden 11.6
Porzingis 11.6
LEBRON wins added
Jokic 12.4
Tatum 9.9
Luka 8.8
Embiid 8.6
Mitchell 8.5
Giannis 8.4
SGA 8.2
Randle 8.2
LeBron 7.7
Dame 7.5
Butler 7.4
Sabonis 7.4
Harden 7.2
Claxton 7.2
Garland 7.2
Last edited:
The problem with hoping that voters can figure this out on their own is that players are playing fewer and fewer games now, and most of the basic stats we use to judge players are primarily used on a per game basis. Joel Embiid is 1st in the league in ppg, James Harden is 1st in the league in apg. Across all media, when analysts refer to these players we are told that they lead the league in scoring and assists. They do not, but it's pounded into everyone day after day, and in the past it wasn't a major deal because pretty much every all-star level player played 70+ games every year (so per game stats typically lined up with season totals), unless they suffered a major injury. Now, those two are on pace for 67 and 58 games and they will end up getting credit that should be going to Tatum and Trae Young.
It's getting harder and harder for voters to make these decisions, and having to add a "games played" qualifier isn't at all interesting to me. Is 61 games of Giannis more valuable than 72 games of Tatum? Without going deep into the advanced stats (which many voters are loath to do), this is a chore of a question to answer. I'm very much ok with that variable being removed, or at least simplified.
Yup, I sign off on this. It makes the criteria simple (which matters a lot when young guys are getting paid based on it), and mostly seems to hurt load-managing old guys, many of whom are chronically over-represented in these awards anyway.
Like, "what if Giannis misses it one year" is an interesting hypothetical, but he's literally never missed the cutoff in his career (adjusting for short schedule in the COVID seasons). He'll hit it this year too, if he wants, even after suffering a number of injuries.
Kawhi won't hit it, because he's more of a hypothetical than a basketball player at this point. LeBron and AD won't hit it, because they've been hurt a lot, and their team will be in the play-in as a result. This all seems good and proper to me.
In defense of the media, they almost universally (I've never heard of a media voter actually being OK with it, but all swans are white until they aren't) hate the fact that there are consequences involved in their all-NBA voting.
But minutes played is a HUGE factor in the value of a player, and media people don't sufficiently account for it. The downside is you're going to end up with Julius Randles and Lauri Markkanens being eligible for the supermax, and that will make people feel really bad. (Maybe going positionless gets around that fact. You'd likely have more than 6 guards making all-NBA this season, for example.)
But minutes played is a HUGE factor in the value of a player, and media people don't sufficiently account for it. The downside is you're going to end up with Julius Randles and Lauri Markkanens being eligible for the supermax, and that will make people feel really bad. (Maybe going positionless gets around that fact. You'd likely have more than 6 guards making all-NBA this season, for example.)
As noted earlier I'm not super worried about players checking into a game for 30 seconds just to hit the minimum. If they are ok with the hit to their per game averages (and to their reputation), have at it. If Tatum were to start his next game and immediately check out and be done for the night without scoring a point, his scoring average would drop under 30 per game and percentage points behind Bird for best in Celtics history(and other players would drop further, as they'd have fewer games than Tatum's 70+ so each 0 point performance would have more impact). Not that this will never happen, I suspect it just won't happen often enough to scrap the whole idea of a games played minimum.
The other thing about Giannis potentially missing the cut: This is literally the most extreme example possible (the consensus best player in the league, on arguably the best team in the league, missing the minimum games played by 1 or 2 games at most). There is no more egregious example possible. I don't think scrapping an entire plan based on the most extreme possible example (and as noted above he's hit this threshold every year of his career, and will likely still hit it this year anyway).
Thanks for this.
Last I checked Jaylen was 17 or 18 in DARKO and much lower in the others.
You can see from EPM and LEBRON that they care far less about defense, with guys like Luka, Dame, and Mitchell far higher up their lists, nevermind Randle.
It doesn't need to be Giannis. I just used him as an example because that's what you do when arguing against something, you show the biggest downside of the issue. The example is extreme, but definitely not unlikely.
Forget just Giannis. I'd be willing to bet money that next year we'll have a top ten player in the league be around 60 games played, and we'll be arguing that he should've made the all-NBA team, but instead someone like Demar Derozan will because he played around 70 games.
If Brown doesn't get All-NBA, the 140% means 4-year/$189MM extension could be offered after July 1.
If accepted, would that start in 2023-24 or the following season?
If accepted, would that start in 2023-24 or the following season?
If teams and players don't change their rest patterns this will absolutely happen (Embiid in particular is going to be riding this line for the rest of his prime). I am very much ok with this. If you miss a quarter of the season, unless you're absolute prime Lebron James, you didn't provide as much value as another top 20 player who played 75 games.
*edit - Demar Derozan has already made all-NBA 3 times, rightly or wrongly (wrongly) he doesn't need this rule change to make all-NBA.
Last edited:
TY...hence an extension to his previous deal...man 5yrs would be sweet. Would the last year probably be a player option?
You can bet on that. If he's willing to sign early, they'll definitely give him the option.
But they can only guarantee him 4/178.8. He'd still have to hit incentives to get him up to the full 189
Putting aside the awards stuff for a moment, it seems that underlying the ability to reach a deal without as much rancor as the other sports is that the players aren't as concerned about the owners getting rich as long as they get theirs and the owners seem somewhat less concerned about squeezing every last dime out of the players.
It doesn't seem like NBA owners are any less greedy, they just understand that this is the only sport where players have leverage. People will watch the NFL with or without even players of Patrick Mahomes' caliber; the same can't be said for the NBA and its stars. Just one or two players can decide the fate of franchises if not the league.
The NBA has a few stipulations in its new 65-game requirement for postseason awards
Players must play 20 minutes per game for it to count as a game except in two of the 65 games a player can play between 15 and 20 minutes and it will still count.
Players must play 20 minutes per game for it to count as a game except in two of the 65 games a player can play between 15 and 20 minutes and it will still count.
Adam Silver is the GOAT commissioner. But the players deserve a ton of credit too. It's a great story that will get unnoticed by most because we tend to fixate on whatever shit is broken. Good for us fans though.
I cannot wait for the PDF to come out for a fabulous 417 pages of reading material. I’m interested to see how the players have negotiated for greater benefits for those on 2-ways.
there is going to be so much $$$ from the TV deal that Super MAX deals at $60MM/per will be common
I wish 2-way guys got more money
Shockingly, an army of expensive lawyers was able to spot the obvious loophole.
This is going to lead to a lot more guys on the margin being eligible for the Supermax, so good for them, although maybe not for their teams.
I'm also happy to have All-NBA stop being a lifetime achievement award for old guys playing 50 games on the 7-9 seeds.
Exactly. Football is the sport where players have the least amount of leverage and they don't have guaranteed contracts. Basketball is where the players have the most leverage. The NBA owners are collectively smart enough to act accordingly, even if some individual owners are still assholes.
Why not just have a minute threshold or a combination game/minute threshold? The one aspect of this whole thing that seems a little bit dumb is that there will ocasionally be some ineligible players with higher minute totals than eligible players. It mostly won't matter in the sense that the vast majority of the 65+ games with low minutes guys won't be in contention for awards. But there will be occasional edge cases where a guy misses the cut to just falling under the games threshold while playing more minutes than someone who wins.
Something else we will see that occured to me during the recent Milwaukee blowout: the Celtics entered the 4th quarter with a 42-point lead, which you don't usually see. They dominated to such an extent that they closed the game with a lineup of Kornet, Muscala, Blake, Grant, and Hauser. But Rob WIlliams played the first 3 minutes of the 4th quarter (and played 18 minutes in the game). Clearly, the Celtics didn't "need" to have Rob out there at all, but they probably wanted him to get the work. But they probably also told him not to do anything cray out there.
"Maintenance days" by top players are going to be replace by "play this game/quarter like a glorified exhibition game or practice and don't put your body on the line" days.
If guys are healthy enough to play a game on easy, is that a problem? You still prevent the more egregious problem: guys getting All-NBA while playing 50-55 games on crappy teams.
It seems like a decent rule overall, if you want All-NBA to be a regular season award in any sense, which the NBA clearly does.
I'm not necessarily criticizing it - it would prbably have to stay limited to not reflect negatively on the player in the voting anyway.
I think if I am the NBA, and I think playing the occasional game on easy is an improvement over "maintenance days" then I would tacitly encourage it. Well, not encourage, exactly, but I would let it be known that for end of season awards, that will be an issue for the voters rather than the league.
Agree, although I think the desire of teams to win games and of players to keep their rate stats pretty will mostly regulate this on their own.
What they should have done is to make a really low GP threshold - say 41 games but then anyone who plays under 65 games gets his votes discounted by something like 5% per game under 65. That way we wouldn't have the "What if the best player in the world only hits 64 games" discussion.
I wonder how many billable hours went into drafting the CBA?
edit: I'm sure they discussed minutes played but if they set the threshold at (say) 1950 - 65 games X 30 minutes, someone could play 50 games of 40 minutes and there would still be the debate over whether that's enough.
Word.
Anyone who can sit out a quarter or more of his team's games probably doesn't need the slot. And probably didn't contribute as much. Imo this will still have some edge cases, but it solves more problems than it creates.